Closing with C.I.'s "The Snapshot:"
Monday, May 19, 2025. Chump and Bessent can't stop lying about tariffs, Donnie Trump Jr. mocks Joe Biden's cancer so let's all remember this when Chump's health takes a turn, Chump continues his attack on education, he continues funneling money to Musk this despite the news that Musk is doing business with terrorists and much, much more.
As we were noting on Friday, Walmart's announcement was huge news:
President Donald Trump's tariffs may affect your daily grocery trips.
Walmart says it must raise prices due to tariff costs after posting solid first quarter sales, the Associated Press reported. In the quarter one earnings call Thursday, Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said that even at reduced levels, higher tariffs will result in higher prices.
Walmart Statistics 2025: Top Highlights
- Walmart attracts 255 million customer visits each week.
- Walmart has 10,660 stores globally.
- The U.S. has 4,606 Walmart stores and 600 Sam’s Club locations.
- Walmart operates 5,454 stores internationally.
- Walmart’s revenue reached $500.4 billion in the first three quarters of fiscal year 2025.
- Walmart employs around 2.1 million people worldwide.
How Many Customers Does Walmart Have?
Walmart sees 255 million customer visits each week across its global network.
This is a notable increase from 2023, when 240 million customers visited weekly, reflecting a rise of 15 million visits between January 2023 and January 2024.
The following table displays the number of weekly customer visits to Walmart stores worldwide over the years.
| Year | Weekly Customer Visits |
|---|---|
| 2024 | 255 million |
| 2023 | 240 million |
| 2022 | 230 million |
| 2021 | 240 million |
| 2020 | 265 million |
| 2019 | 275 million |
| 2018 | 270 million |
| 2017 | 260 million |
Source: Business Insider, Statista.
Here are some additional statistics about Walmart Customers:
- Nearly 19 out of 20 Americans visit Walmart at least twice a year.
- The average Walmart shopper makes 67 trips annually, including visits to Sam’s Club.
- On average, Walmart shoppers spend $54 on 13 items per trip.
- The typical Walmart customer is a white baby boomer with an annual income of less than $80,000.
- Walmart earns over $1.56 billion daily by serving millions of customers.
- Every second customer worldwide spends an average of $15,288 at Walmart.
That was Friday morning and we went into more of it and noted how various outlets had treated it Thursday night as a brief headline if they noted it at all. It was big news and it remains big news.
CBS NEWS reported Saturday:
President Trump ripped into Walmart, saying on social media Saturday that the retail giant should "eat the tariffs" instead of blaming the duties on imported goods imposed by his administration for its increased prices.
Walmart on Thursday warned that everything from bananas to children's car seats could increase in price despite the softer tariffs on China.
"We can control what we can control," Walmart CEO Doug McMillon said on the company's first quarter earnings call Thursday. "Even at the reduced levels, the higher tariffs will result in higher prices," he added.
The price hikes are expected to go into effect later this month.
As Mr. Trump has jacked up import taxes, he has tried to assure a skeptical public that foreign producers would pay for those taxes and that retailers and automakers would absorb the additional expenses.
The administration dispatched bad liar Scott Bessent to lie on NBC's MEET THE PRESS.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It's wonderful to have you on after a long foreign trip. Thank you for being here. Let's start right there with Moody's downgrading the nation's credit rating. And they do cite the debt. I want to read you a little bit of what Moody's says. It says, quote, "If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is extended, which is our base case, it will add around $4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade." Several Republicans, Mr. Secretary, are citing similar concerns. Does the president's tax bill need to do more to address the nation's debt and deficit?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, Kristen, first – first of all, I – I think that Moody's is a lagging indicator.
And we edit there. I don't like liars and he's lying. Please note, he's had this habit all of his life, when he starts a lie, he stammers. He starts repeating the same word. It's his tell. I-I? He's lying.
Back to the transcript.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Fair enough. But under President Trump's first administration he added $8 trillion to the nation's debt in his first term. So there's plenty of blame to go around. Let me –
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
No, no, no, no, no.
His repeated "no"s inform that he's lying. We're not posting his lies.
KRISTEN WELKER:
It did include the – the tax cuts as well. But let me ask you about Walmart, this big news from Walmart. It says it will start raising prices on its consumers, Mr. Secretary, as early as this month due to the tariffs. Now, President Trump out with a very stern warning on social media saying Walmart, quote, "should eat the tariffs," adding the company made far more than expected last year. Is the president asking American companies to be less profitable?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I – I was on the phone with Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart
Lying.
KRISTEN WELKER:
Well, you know, in my conversation with former Vice President Mike Pence, he says he sees tariffs as a tax. How far, Mr. Secretary, is the president, is the administration willing to go to prevent CEOs from increasing prices?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
Well, I – I think what we are hearing here
Again, he's lying and we don't have the time.
KRISTEN WELKER:
But the Federal Reserve has said that tariffs are inflationary. Just to be very clear, you said you called Walmart. Is that what CEOs can expect, that you, that the president, that other members of the administration will apply pressure to try to prevent them from passing on these prices to CEOs?
SEC. SCOTT BESSENT:
I – I didn't apply any pressure.
Scott's a liar and he lied to try to stop the bleeding.
The truth? Richard Luscombe (GUARDIAN) reports:
The US retail giant Walmart will “eat some of the tariffs” in line with Donald Trump’s demands, the president’s treasury secretary Scott Bessent insisted on Sunday, claiming he received the assurance in a personal phone call with the company’s chief executive, Doug McMillon.
A spokesperson for Walmart said the company would not comment on conversations between its executives and administration officials. However, a source familiar with the conversation said the phone call between Bessent and McMillon was arranged many days prior to Trump’s post – and that the company’s position had not changed.
Walmart said this week it had no alternative to raising prices for consumers beginning later this month because it could not absorb the cost of the president’s tariffs on international trade, which have caused turmoil in international markets.
Again, this was a huge story the moment that it broke and it's a real shame that so many outlets were sleeping on the job Thursday evening and Thursday night and didn't see it for the big story -- more than a mere headline -- that it was. Other retail outlets will follow suit. We covered it all on Friday.
At MOTHER JONES, Julianne McShane observes:
After President Donald Trump announced last month that the United States would impose a baseline 10-percent tariff on much of the world—with far higher rates for a set of other countries—economists warned that consumers would feel the impacts on a variety of products, including groceries, coffee, and cars.
But the Trump administration has tried a whole range of tactics to gaslight Americans into believing that would not happen—including claiming that the tariffs are, in the words of White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, “a tax cut for the American people” and that they will help improve domestic manufacturing. After reports suggested that Amazon planned to list the costs that tariffs were adding to products on its retail website, the White House called it a “hostile and political act”—and Amazon seemed to quickly reverse course. (Since Trump’s initial rounds of tariffs were announced, the exact details of them have shifted repeatedly—and much of the increase has been paused. Last week, the US and China agreed to temporarily lower the high tariffs both countries had placed on the other; on Friday, Trump said the US would soon begin informing countries of their new tariff rates.)
On Thursday, Walmart became the latest company caught in Trump’s crosshairs after its CEO, Doug McMillon, admitted that the president’s tariffs would cause the retail giant to raise prices. On an earnings call, McMillon said “the higher tariffs will result in higher prices.”
“We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible, but given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren’t able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins,” McMillon said on the call.
[. . .]
Contrary to the Trump administration’s claims, tariffs do raise taxes on consumers. And unlike Jeff Bezos, Walmart’s CEO is apparently willing to admit that. But in doing so, he unleashed Trump’s wrath—and made clear that, as my colleague Pema Levy previously wrote, “With tariffs, Trump is poised to trade a strong economy for one run on loyalty and retribution.”
In other news, at THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, Daniel Boguslaw writes:
Presidential sidekick Elon Musk has thus far been spared from the greatest risk to his interstellar empire: the continuity of hawkish antitrust enforcement between the Biden and Trump administrations. That’s good news for his company SpaceX and its subsidiary Starlink, which are in a plum position to dominate not only commercial space transportation, but space itself. By most accounts, Musk will soon depart government for the friendlier confines of his own private city after pulling out random wires from the federal motherboard. But if everything goes according to plan, the richest man on Earth will soon earn an even darker and stupider moniker: viceroy of low-Earth orbit.
More than half of satellites circling the Earth are currently owned by Starlink, launched into our atmosphere using SpaceX Falcon rockets, and the company is now petitioning to launch tens of thousands more. Starlink gained new eligibility from Trump’s Commerce Department to wire much of the underserved parts of the country with satellite internet. There are now Starlink satellite systems serving the White House, and Starlink contracts upgrading IT for a Federal Aviation Administration in disarray thanks to cuts by DOGE, Musk’s hand-selected government-destroying apparatus. If that wasn’t enough, Republicans could soon steer wireless spectrum auctions Starlink’s way, which could bulk up the company’s satellite capacity even further.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has raked in billions of dollars in government contracts sending satellites and astronauts into space, while also collecting millions from private entities using SpaceX rockets to further their own space enterprises. President Trump’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year would shower further billions on SpaceX for a back-to-the-future missile defense system and manned flights to Mars and the moon.
The federal government’s reliance on SpaceX started well before the Trump administration, and for good reason. SpaceX rockets have proved efficient, reusable, and cost-effective. SpaceX enjoyed $3.8 billion in federal contracts in 2024, the last year of the Biden administration. But critics, including those inside the Department of Defense, have sounded the alarm on the increasing dominance of a single company.
“Heaven forbid we have a mishap with a Falcon 9 launch,” Col. Richard Kniseley, an officer in the Space Force’s Commercial Space Office, told The New York Times last year. “That means it is grounded, right? And that means we could be without launch.” Kniseley’s concern is just one among many related to SpaceX dominating the full range of space services.
Hal Singer, a professor of economics at the University of Utah, has even more concerns. Singer’s tally of anti-competitive SpaceX actions includes corporate predation, barrier-to-entry protectionism, exclusionary contracting, and more. Meanwhile, two competitors of note—Jim Cantrell of Phantom Space and Peter Beck of Rocket Lab—have both publicly disclosed actions that SpaceX has taken to undercut their growth.
And, of course, there's the terrorism aspect. What? You haven't hear about that?
Who's paying for a blue checkmark on X-formerly-Twitter these days? According to a new report by the big tech accountability nonprofit Tech Transparency Project (TTP), the answer is: a bunch of terrorists.
The TTP investigation found that more than 200 X users including individuals who appear to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and Syrian and Iraqi militia groups — all deemed foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) by the US government — are paying for subscriptions to Elon Musk's X.
Put simply, Musk is doing business with actual terrorists, highlighting major flaws in his social media company's content moderation practices.
These paid subscriptions are granting apparent terrorists blue verification badges, which can offer the accounts an added air of legitimacy. Most importantly, though, the subscriptions are granting the users access to premium X features and perks like content monetization tools, the ability to publish longer posts and videos, and greater platform reach — which the TTP says allows for terrorism-linked users to more effectively distribute and monetize propaganda, as well as promote their fundraising efforts.
[. . .]
Put simply, Musk is doing business with actual terrorists, highlighting major flaws in his social media company's content moderation practices.
These paid subscriptions are granting apparent terrorists blue verification badges, which can offer the accounts an added air of legitimacy. Most importantly, though, the subscriptions are granting the users access to premium X features and perks like content monetization tools, the ability to publish longer posts and videos, and greater platform reach — which the TTP says allows for terrorism-linked users to more effectively distribute and monetize propaganda, as well as promote their fundraising efforts.
In a functioning government, Monday morning would begin with the announcement that the US government was cancelling all government contracts with Musk and his businesses and that Musk was banned from the White House.
Leave it to Chump, the intelligence failure, to be bringing a terrorist supporter into the White House.
Meanwhile, Chump continues kidnapping people off the street and sending them out of the country. Catherine Bouris (DAILY BEAST) reports:
In the latest in an ever-growing line of errors that have plagued the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, ICE officers have now admitted a software error may have resulted in a man being deported to Mexico, despite fear of persecution.
The revelation emerged as the result of a class-action lawsuit filed by a Guatemalan man who was deported to Mexico in March despite fears he would face persecution there on the basis of his sexuality.
Initially, the administration argued that the man himself had told them he wasn’t afraid to be sent to Mexico, but in a Friday court filing, they conceded that this argument was based on inaccurate information.
Retracting their previous assertions, ICE officials have now said they have no record of the man telling anyone that he was unafraid of being sent to Mexico. They attributed the error to software known as the “ENFORCE alien removal module,” which tracks deportations and allows ICE employees to add comments.
The deportations shouldn't be taking place at all but they definitely do need court supervision -- as does Chump. Martha McHardy (NEWSWEEK) notes:
O.C.G.'s case is part of a broader legal challenge to the administration's use of so-called "third-country" deportations, a policy that allows immigrants to be sent to countries other than their own if their native governments refuse to accept them or if they fear persecution at home. Murphy has blocked such deportations without prior notice, ruling that individuals must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest their transfer and raise claims of torture or persecution.
O.C.G., who fled Guatemala in April 2024, said he faced persecution at home and endured rape and captivity in Mexico for being gay. In February, an immigration judge granted him protection from deportation to Guatemala. But ICE deported him to Mexico soon after — without notice and allegedly in violation of due process.
Judge Murphy cited O.C.G.'s case in his ruling halting third-country deportations without notice. Although he expressed skepticism about the government's claim regarding O.C.G.'s supposed statement to ICE, the disputed nature of the evidence led him to hold off on ordering the man's return. It is unclear if the administration's new admission will alter that stance.
What he's doing is awful and inhumane. What he wants to do is even worse: Racially profiling newborn infants. At USA TODAY, Louie Villalobos explains how Chump would follow up if allowed to strip citizenship from some of those born in this country:
How do you think Trump and his Republican enablers expect to enforce the removal of birthright citizenship from the U.S. Constitution? I'm not talking about the legal procedure. I'm not naive enough to see how this administration works and expect Republicans to care about procedure or even, honestly, the Constitution.
I'm talking about actually making sure that babies born in America to undocumented immigrants aren't given citizenship.
You know what? I'll just let Justice Brett Kavanaugh ask the questions. This is a short transcript of Kavanaugh asking U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer how the Trump administration expects to know which babies are citizens if the executive order were to go into effect.
Kavanaugh: "What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?"
Sauer: "I don't think they do anything different. What the executive order says in section 2 is that federal officials do not accept documents that have the wrong designation of citizenship from people who are subject to the executive order."
Kavanaugh: "How are they going to know that?"
Sauer: "The states can continue to ... The federal officials will have to figure that out."
Kavanaugh: "How?"
Sauer: "So, uh, you could imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could..."
Kavanaugh: "Such as?"
Sauer: "Such as, they could require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country. For a temporary visitor, for example, they could see whether they're on a B-1 visa, which would exclude the kind of birthright citizenship in that context."
Kavanaugh: "For all the newborns? Is that how it's going to work?"
Sauer: "Again, we don't know because the agencies were never given the opportunity to formulate the guidance."
In case you don't see it or hear it, the "how" is very loud in that exchange. Since the Trump administration couldn't answer that question, Justice Kavanaugh, I will. Real quick, though: they won't do it for all the newborns.
No, not for all. What they'll do is racially profile newborn.
There are about forty other stories we could cover but we don't have the room or time. We will note that Troy Matthews (MTN) reports:
Donald Trump Jr. mocked the cancer diagnosis of former President Joe Biden in a post on X Sunday evening, then pinned the post to the top of his feed.
"What I want to know is how did Dr. Jill Biden miss stage five metastatic cancer," Jr. said, alluding to Jill Biden's doctorate in education, a favorite target of MAGA, "or is this yet another coverup???"
Jr. was responding to a post that suggested Biden was sick with cancer while he was President, and the American public was not informed.
Chump is rotting from the inside out and I hope the entire country remembers that Chump Junior gave permission to mock politicians having health scares. Now that the policy is known, let's all abide by it.
We'll wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
Top Democratic appropriators call out delays in notification of federal education funding
Washington, D.C. — Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee and the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, and Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, sent a letter to Secretary Linda McMahon calling out the Department’s failure to provide public K-12 schools across the nation the timely notice they usually receive about federal funding they count on—and urging McMahon to put an end to the harmful delays.
“We write to express our concern about the delay in providing states and school districts with information about expected formula funding required to be provided to them under the fiscal year 2025 appropriations law and request you re-focus the Department of Education on fulfilling its statutory obligations in a clear, certain and timely manner,” write the lawmakers. “We believe you need to immediately change course and work in partnership with states and school districts to help them effectively use federal funds to implement the purposes and requirements of federal law to improve educational opportunities for all students.”
The lawmakers note that, under enacted appropriations laws, “the Department must allocate formula-grant funding for multiple programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The largest of these, the Title I-A grant program, will provide $18.4 billion by formula to more than 80 percent of the nation’s school districts, and is already factored into budgets for the coming school year that is only a few months away.”
But despite this requirement to get federal K-12 funding out the door, it has taken the Department more than three times as long as the last administration to provide preliminary allocations to states and school districts after passage of fiscal year 2025 appropriations: “Yet, it took until May 13, 2025—more than 50 days after enactment of the 2025 appropriations law—for the Department to provide preliminary allocations of the amounts states and their school districts should expect to receive under the Title I-A formula grant programs for the 2025-2026 school year. This inexcusable delay is in sharp contrast with actions by the Biden administration. After President Biden signed the 2024 appropriations law on March 23, 2024, the Department provided preliminary allocations under the Title I-A program on April 8, 2024, just over two weeks after the appropriations law was signed. The Trump-McMahon Department took more than three times as much time to accomplish this basic task. We were told your Department’s work would be efficient, particularly after the reduction in force in which you reduced half of the Department’s workforce, but that does not appear to be the case here.”
“The delayed allocation,” the lawmakers write, “gives states less time to identify these [school support and improvement] amounts and make decisions about how best to allocate funds as allowed by federal law, which are required to be used for evidence-based interventions designed to help improve student outcomes in the lowest performing public schools in the state and lowest performing subgroups in public schools in the state.”
The lawmakers conclude by calling on Secretary McMahon to put an end to these delays and ensure K-12 schools have the certainty and support they need in the coming school year: “We implore the Department to reverse course, stop creating chaos, provide states and school districts with information about the resources Congress provided in the 2025 appropriations law and begin to support states and their school districts in the effective implementation of federal law. The Department’s actions to date have only imposed legally dubious policy reversals, funding cancellations, terminations and reductions, and funding directives that do nothing to support students and educators in improving student learning and outcomes.”
Full text of the letter is available HERE and below:
| The Honorable Linda McMahon Secretary U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 |
Dear Secretary McMahon:
We write to express our concern about the delay in providing states and school districts with information about expected formula funding required to be provided to them under the fiscal year 2025 appropriations law and request you re-focus the Department of Education (“Department”) on fulfilling its statutory obligations in a clear, certain and timely manner. States and school districts are best able to plan to most effectively use federal funds with advance knowledge of expected funding, as Congress intends by providing funds on a forward-funded basis. We have seen and heard numerous remarks from you and President Trump about returning education to the states. However, actions to date tell a very different story about the Department’s intentions. We believe you need to immediately change course and work in partnership with states and school districts to help them effectively use federal funds to implement the purposes and requirements of federal law to improve educational opportunities for all students, particularly students from low-income families, students with disabilities, English learners, students experiencing homelessness and other historically underserved students our federal laws specifically require states to support.
Congress passed the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, which President Trump signed on March 15, 2025. This law includes appropriations to the Department under the terms and conditions of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024. Under those terms, the Department must allocate formula-grant funding for multiple programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The largest of these, the Title I-A grant program, will provide $18.4 billion by formula to more than 80 percent of the nation’s school districts, and is already factored into budgets for the coming school year that is only a few months away. Public school budgets also already factor in billions in funding for longstanding federal formula grants, including English Language Acquisition Grants, Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants, and more. Yet, it took until May 13, 2025–more than 50 days after enactment of the 2025 appropriations law–for the Department to provide preliminary allocations of the amounts states and their school districts should expect to receive under the Title I-A formula grant programs for the 2025-2026 school year.
This inexcusable delay is in sharp contrast with actions by the Biden administration. After President Biden signed the 2024 appropriations law on March 23, 2024, the Department provided preliminary allocations under the Title I-A program on April 8, 2024, just over two weeks after the appropriations law was signed. The Trump-McMahon Department took more than three times as much time to accomplish this basic task.. We were told your Department’s work would be efficient, particularly after the reduction in force in which you reduced half of the Department’s workforce,[1] but that does not appear to be the case here.
As you know, Title I-A is the largest federal program that provides supplemental funds to more than 80 percent of the nation’s school districts for more than half of all public schools. It also contains critical funding to identify and support the lowest performing public schools in each state and consistently underperforming subgroups of students in public schools in each state, and support students experiencing homelessness. States are required to set-aside a portion of a state’s allocation of Title I-A funds for its school support and improvement work without reducing any school district’s allocation. The delayed allocation gives states less time to identify these amounts and make decisions about how best to allocate funds as allowed by federal law, which are required to be used for evidence-based interventions designed to help improve student outcomes in the lowest performing public schools in the state and lowest performing subgroups in public schools in the state. In addition, school districts are required to reserve sufficient funds to provide services to students experiencing homelessness in Title I and non-Title I schools. The Department’s delayed notification could also make it more difficult for school districts to best serve students experiencing homelessness as required by law.
Unfortunately, the Department’s delays also extend to the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) and other programs. REAP supports more than 6,000 rural school districts and was created to address the unique challenges faced by rural schools, including a lower tax base and capacity challenges in seeking competitive funding. Unfortunately, the Department made the application for the Small, Rural Schools Assistance (SRSA) program—one of two REAP grant programs—available on May 14th, with applications due 30 days later on June 13, 2025. By contrast, last year under the Biden administration, the Department released the FY 2024 application for SRSA on March 19, 2024 and provided a 60-day application window. The delayed application and shortened application window under your leadership demonstrate a lack of concern for the challenges rural schools face; or perhaps the Department’s workforce reductions have limited its ability to fulfill its statutory obligations in a timely way.
Unfortunately, we must also note the Department has been busy discontinuing funds for hundreds of grantees of school-based mental health programs we have supported through appropriations directives to the Department and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.[2] The Department abruptly decided to discontinue expected federal support for more than 200 grants for mental health services in schools after what it claimed, without evidence, was an individualized review of the grants.[3] This alleged review led the Department to the conclusion that continuing the grants was not in the “best interest of the Federal Government” and that some of the grants “undermine the well-being of the students these programs are intended to help”.[4] There’s bitter irony in the Department’s decision only days later to issue updated guidance encouraging states to undertake more work under the unsafe school option provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act [5] after discontinuing funds supported on a bipartisan basis for the important federal support it provides for mental health services that can help students feel safe in school and protect them from acts of school violence.[6]
We implore the Department to reverse course, stop creating chaos, provide states and school districts with information about the resources Congress provided in the 2025 appropriations law and begin to support states and their school districts in the effective implementation of federal law. The Department’s actions to date have only imposed legally dubious policy reversals,[7][8][9] funding cancellations, terminations and reductions,[10][11][12] and funding directives[13][14] that do nothing to support students and educators in improving student learning and outcomes.
In addition, Congress and American taxpayers continue to see an utter lack of transparency from you and this administration. We’ve written numerous letters[15][16][17][18] that have yet to receive adequate or any response. You also failed to meet legal requirements to provide an operating plan at the level of detail required by section 1113 and in adherence to section 1101 of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, despite having more than 45 days to do so. This must change immediately.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. We look forward to seeing actions from the Department that align to the timely and effective implementation of the requirements of federal law. We also look forward to responses to our letters and your testimony before committees later this year.
Sincerely,
###
The following sites updated:
