The Trump Deadline That Could Ignite a Global Crisis & Why MAGA Media Is Turning On Trump
PDS Published 04/06/2026
-
And that might actually be the least of the President’s problems.
This fallout starts with Trump’s crazy Easter post cursing out Iran and praising Allah, because Alex responded by saying:
“America is sinking in global rankings and likability. It’s just not what we voted for. We never see rhetoric out of presidents like this when we go to war. Even if you are for this war, this is really bad PR, folks. That is what I am talking about with the way Trump is behaving. It is way more erratic, his speech is not coherent all the time, you cannot deny that this is happening.” (1:24-1:49)
With him even adding that yes, he does often highlights the good things he believes Trump is doing, but he does not fully back Trump, explaining:
“I’m trying to salvage something before the midterms, just, you know, hope that we can get Trump to pull out of this war. I’m trying to get as much public awakening and pressure to this as possible, but I don’t have a lot of hope.” (1:56-2:08)
This is notably not the first time Alex has questioned Trump’s mental faculties, and he is far from the first person expressing major concerns here.
People like former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who used to be a Trump loyalist before distancing herself and leaving Congress, wrote yesterday:[]
“Everyone in his administration that claims to be a Christian needs to fall on their knees and beg forgiveness from God and stop worshipping the President and intervene in Trump’s madness. I know all of you and him and he has gone insane, and all of you are complicit.”
“This NOT what we promised the American people when they overwhelmingly voted in 2024, I know, I was there more than most. This is not making America great again, this is evil.”
And her words are especially important here, not just because she is a very prominent conservative who has turned on the president.
But because the runoff election to fill her Georgia seat is tomorrow, and Iran and overall party divisions could play a major role in the race.
With the New York Times calling this:
“one of the first electoral tests of how voters are responding to the Iran war.”
And it is important to note, not all MAGA voters have abandoned Trump here, there are plenty of everyday Trump loyalists who remain unmoved.
But the question is, how many of those voters are there compared to the ones really getting fed up and wanting to buck the president.
The candidates in this Georgia race are Democrat Shawn Harris, who has spoken against the war, against Trump, really focusing on how his decisions have increased costs for Americans.
And then Republican Clayton Fuller, who is a Trump loyalist and has defended the president, using MAGA talking points to argue the war is making the country safer.
Greene has not formally endorsed either candidate, though CNN reported she intends to vote for the Republican.[]
Though on the issue of Iran, specifically, her thoughts are more in-line with the Democratic candidate.[]
But MTG’s district is one of the reddest in the state, so it would be a major uphill battle for any Democrat to win it.
And that is why you had the New York Times arguing that:
“a competitive performance by (democratic candidate) Mr. Harris on Tuesday, even in defeat, could offer another warning signal for the Republican Party.”
Right, even if he does not win and just does better than expected, that could be a crucial temperature check for Trump when it comes to issues like Iran.
And say the Democrat does somehow win, well, his Republican opponent said that:
“would be a tragedy for the MAGA movement and for President Trump.”
And this is far from the only place to see shifting views on Trump because of Iran.
Recently there have been a ton of articles suggesting that Trump is losing the podcast bro coalition over the issue.
You may have even seen this conversation between Joe Rogan and Theo Von that got a ton of attention last week:
“I’m confused, I can’t believe we went to this war. When we started bombing Iran, I was like, this can’t be true…what about Lebanon know…I know, Israel invaded Lebanon…it’s like, just fucking stop it. What do you need?...Well, supposedly, they are trying to stop the terrorists…that’s crazy! You’re the fucking terrorists! You know what I’m saying? You want to stop them, stand in front of the mirror and start there.” (2:36:50-2:37:21)
With many viewing that as a really strong condemnation, wondering where the voters who think like your Joe Rogans and Theo Vons might be leaning going into the midterms….[leads into Jared’s story]
-
But whatever MAGA has to say about Trump’s war in Iran, we also have to consider the facts.
And the fact is, if Donald Trump isn’t already a war criminal, he is really gunning for the title.
He is openly and proudly threatening to launch attacks that experts near universally agree would violate the laws of war.
And these attacks could directly affect millions of civilians across Iran, potentially provoke retaliatory strikes affecting millions more across the Gulf, and possibly trigger further global economic fallout pushing yet millions more into poverty, hunger, and other hardship.
And he’s now backed down so many times he may find himself feeling like he has little option but to follow through.
Right, because Trump? He has already been threatening strikes on civilian infrastructure for weeks.
He first did so on March 13th—threatening to “wipe out” oil facilities on Kharg Island.
And he issued his first ultimatum on March 21st—threatening to obliterate Iran’s “various power plants” if it didn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz within forty-eight hours.
He then postponed that deadline five days due to what he said were:
“....VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES…” .
But that deadline came and went too.
With Trump claiming talks were “going well” and pushing it back another ten days to April 6th—which is today.
And then going even further—threatening to blow up and completely obliterate not only all of Iran’s “electric generating plants” but also their oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly “all desalination plants.”
And then, last Wednesday, in another post, as well as in his primetime address to the nation, you had vowing to bring Iran “back to the Stone Ages” where he said “they belong.”
And you’ve had people like a Stanford Law professor arguing that "The reference to the Stone Age indicates that objects would be targeted seemingly because they contribute to the viability of a modern society in Iran….
“....which is completely unrelated to the question of contribution to military action -- the necessary condition for targeting in war.”
Right, because technically, it’s possible that a strike on certain civilian infrastructure, including power plants, could be permissible under international law if there’s a clear military rationale and there isn’t disproportionate civilian harm.
But that’s a high bar, and you even have a retired Air Force Lieutenant General who helped direct attacks on Iraq’s electrical network during the 1991 Gulf War arguing the strikes threatened by Trump wouldn’t clear it—saying:
“You cannot bomb a power station to send a message. You have to be able to articulate a ‘definite military advantage,’ not a political advantage.”
“Disrupting enemy morale or changing the thinking of leadership by destroying civilian objects–that’s not a thing.”[]
And with all that, a day after Trump’s stone age comment, you had more than 100 experts on international law signing an open letter last week expressing what they described as "profound concern" over serious violations of international law by the US, Israel, and Iran.
They argued that the US and Israel’s decision to attack Iran in the first place constituted a clear breach of the United Nations Charter—which only allows for the use of force in self-defense or with authorization from the UN Security Council. []
They also pointed to strikes against civilians and civilian infrastructure—including energy infrastructure and desalination plants, schools, health facilities, and homes.
WIth them specifically highlighting the apparent US attack on a primary school on the first day of the war—which was reported to have killed 175 people including 110 children.[]
And they also pointed out what they described as “alarming rhetoric” coming from various officials on all side—especially from the US.
With them pointing to Trump’s repeated threats to “obliterate” Iranian power plants as well as Pete Hegesth’s call for “no quarter” to be given—which is also a war crime—and writing:
"Public statements by senior officials indicate an alarming disrespect for the rules of international humanitarian law accepted by states, and which protect both civilians and members of the armed forces." []
But, of course, Trump? Frankly, he doesn’t give a fuck.
Within hours of that letter being published you had him sharing a video of an attack on a bridge near the capital of Tehran, which Iranian news outlets reported killed eight people and wounded almost 100, and writing:
“Much more to follow!”
“IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF WHAT STILL COULD BECOME A GREAT COUNTRY!”
And, again, according to some experts, whether this bridge could be considered a legitimate target would depend on whether it was used by its military or plays a role in military operations.
And the American military reportedly claimed the intent had been to eliminate what it called a planned military supply route for Iran’s missile and drone forces.
But a local Iranian official told state media that there was “absolutely no military activity” on the bridge and claimed the casualties were people from a nearby village who were picnicking outdoors in celebration of the Persian new year. []
And you’ve also had a former State Department lawyer specialized in the law of armed conflict saying Trump’s own words undermine those claims—telling the New York Times:
“Whether the bridge was a lawful military objective would depend on the facts”—but adding:
“My read is that bridge was targeted not to provide any military advantage but in the hopes of coercing Tehran and generating content.”
But, again, despite all that, Trump? He just kept going—writing in another post:
“Bridges next, then Electric Power Plants!”
“New Regime leadership knows what has to be done, and has to be done, FAST!
But, of course, Iran? It’s not so hot on international law or human rights either.
So it has just responded in kind—allegedly striking an oil refinery in Kuwait on Friday as well as a power and water desalination plant in the country.
And, in a separate attack, falling debris from a missile or drone interception reportedly started a fire at a major gas field in the UAE.
Although, notably, the damage may be ever worse than we’ve been led to believe.
At least according to the investigative media outlet Bellingcat, which reported last week that UAE officials have downplayed or mischaracterized several Iranian attacks on the country.
In one case, for example, the government similarly said it had intercepted a strike and that the only damage had been caused by falling debris.
But—according to video and satellite imagery—it actually hit and destroyed three fuel storage tanks. []
And there may be similar reasons to question claims made by Trump officials about Iran’s capabilities.
With CNN reporting that American intelligence agencies believe Iran maintains significant missile launching capability.
In fact, according to recent assessments, roughly half of Iran’s missile launchers are reportedly still intact—along with thousands of one-way attack drones—despite the daily onslaught by the US and Israel.
And although these assessments may include launchers that are currently inaccessible—including those buried underground by strikes but not destroyed—you had one source telling CNN:
“They are still very much poised to wreak absolute havoc throughout the entire region.” []
But despite that, you had Trump claiming in his speech last week:
“They have no antiaircraft equipment. Their radar is 100 percent annihilated. We are unstoppable as a military force.” (25:24-25:34)
And a couple of days later Iran shot down an American fighter jet over southern Iran.
It was the first time a manned American aircraft went down over hostile territory during this war—although three fighter jets were shot down by friendly fire over Kuwait on March 2nd.
But there, of course, after ejecting, they were located relatively easily and given whatever care they needed.
In this case, you had what could have only been an extremely risky and dangerous rescue operation.
Although, thankfully, one of the crew members was extracted relatively quickly.
The search for the second, however, dragged on until Sunday—but in the end this individual was also saved and now both are reportedly recovering at a military hospital in Germany.
Somehow no more lives were lost although Iran has claimed multiple American military aircraft were destroyed in the process.
And despite only narrowly avoiding a far worse outcome Trump appears emboldened by the success of the mission—continuing newer and more unhinged threats.
With the full text of that Easter Sunday post being:
“Tuesday will be Power Plant Day, and Bridge Day, all wrapped up in one, in Iran.”
“There will be nothing like it!!! Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”
“JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”
He then followed up a few hours by appearing to push back the deadline that had already been pushed back multiple times to today to tomorrow—writing:
“Tuesday, 8:00 P.M. Eastern Time!”
He also told Axios yesterday that the US is "in deep negotiations" with Iran and that a deal can be reached before his deadline expires on Tuesday-–saying:
"There is a good chance, but if they don't make a deal, I am blowing up everything over there.” []
And the told the Wall Street Journal:
“If they don’t come through, if they want to keep it closed, they’re going to lose every power plant and every other plant they have in the whole country.” []
Although, even as we’re waiting to see if he follows through, Israel, at least? It already kind of is following through.
Right, among multiple strikes that reportedly killed dozens across Iran, today, Israel claimed responsibility for attacks on Iran’s largest petrochemical industrial complex and on facilities in the South Pars natural gas field.
Which stands out because an earlier Israeli attack on the South Pars gas field—the Iranian portion of the largest natural gas field in the world—marked a major escalation in the war.
With Iran retaliating against other oil and gas facilities in the Gulf States—including the world's largest liquefied natural gas production facility in Qatar.
Which then led to Trump threatening to “blow up the entirety” of the South Pars gas field if Iran attacked Qatar again while promising Israel wouldn’t attack it again.
But this time, Trump hasn’t commented, and Israel’s Defence Minister threatened in a statement today to destroy Iran’s infrastructure and hunt down its leaders "one by one".
And with that, another Israeli strike also killed the head of the intelligence wing of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
And another reportedly hit the data center at Sharif (Shuh-reef) University of Technology in Tehran.
Apparently damaging infrastructure important to the country’s national artificial intelligence platform and thousands of other services.
The International Atomic Energy Agency also confirmed strikes close to Iran's only functioning nuclear power plant today.
Which led to Iran’s atomic energy chief slamming the agency for not doing more—claiming this was the fourth time the plant had been targeted and claiming each time risked releasing radioactive material that could have “irreparable consequences” for people, the environment, and neighboring countries. []
Although, notably, you had the head of the UN agency pretty much arguing the same thing—saying “a nuclear facility and surrounding areas should never be struck.”
And similarly warning that any strikes around the area “could cause a severe radiological accident with harmful consequences for people and the environment in Iran and beyond.”[]
But with all that, on the flip side, as far as Iranian attacks, you had Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia all activating their air defenses today.
And in Israel, an Iranian missile strike apparently made it through and killed at least four people.
Iran also reportedly targeted satellite equipment and munitions on an island that American forces had just relocated to.
While you’ve also had a military spokesperson responding to Trump’s latest threats—saying:
“If attacks on civilian targets are repeated, the subsequent phases of our offensive and retaliatory operations will be carried out much more crushingly and extensively, and the enemy’s losses and damages from persisting with this approach will be multiplied.”
But despite all the rhetoric, the US and Iran reportedly received a Pakistani-brokered proposal to implement an immediate ceasefire followed by negotiations on a broader deal to be concluded within fifteen to twenty days.
But Iran responded with its own proposal to end the war permanenedly—reportedly including a protocol for safe passage of shipping through the strategic Strait of Hormuz and a demand for the lifting of sanctions.
And Trump, while taking questions from reporters during the annual Easter Egg Roll event at the White House, said he had seen Iran’s latest proposal, saying it’s a “significant step” but “not good enough.”
He also said that Americans may need to weather higher gas prices “for a couple of months” but that it will be worth it because Iran won’t have a nuclear weapon.
And he reiterated his threats against Iran—saying the United States was “obliterating the country” because its leadership wouldn’t cave.
-
But while most of us are hoping this situation somehow doesn't get any worse, some people are just hoping they place the right bets.
Right, as the search for the downed U.S. pilots was underway, Polymarket was allowing users to bet on the fate of the American airmen — until it was called out by a member of Congress.
With Rep. Seth Moulton (Molten) — who is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq — posting a screenshot of the market and writing on X :
“There is an ongoing search and rescue operation for a missing American service member whose plane was shot down over Iran. Their safety is unknown. They could be your neighbor, a friend, a family member. And people are betting on whether or not they'll be saved. This is DISGUSTING.”[]
With him also going on to note that Donald Trump Jr. is an investor in Polymarket, which he described as a “dystopian death market,” adding that the president’s son “may have access to intelligence that isn't public yet.”
Right, and a few hours later, we saw Polymarket replying to that post, saying:
“We took this market down immediately as it does not meet our integrity standards. It should not have been posted, and we are investigating how this slipped through our internal safeguards.”[]
But you had Molten hitting back, telling the platform that its integrity standards “are severely lacking,” noting that users are “still able to place bets on the lives of our troops” and flagging well over 200 active bets in Polymarket’s ‘war’ category. []
With him also claiming in an email to CNBC:
“Polymarket didn’t take that market down because it violated their standards. They took it down because we called them out.”
And going on to accuse the Trump administration of failing to act, noting that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has the authority to regulate prediction market platforms, but claiming that the agency is doing almost nothing.
And to that point, this actually isn’t the first time the CFTC has been called out for failing to regulate prediction markets that allow users to profit off death.
Right, back in February, before the Iran war even started, you had a group of Senators writing a letter to the agency and urging it to, quote:
“clearly reiterate that the CFTC will categorically prohibit any contract that resolves upon or closely correlates to an individual’s death.”
With the lawmakers noting that these contracts are actually already banned under the federal Commodity Exchange Act, arguing:
“These contracts further risk incentivizing real-world harm by creating financial rewards linked to destabilizing events or physical injury, and by encouraging actors to influence or precipitate those outcomes for personal profit.”
Adding that, as a result, these markets “present dangerous national security risks.”
But, of course, Trump’s CFTC hasn’t done that.
And not only has the agency failed to enforce any kind of meaningful regulation, but it's also actively trying to prevent states from taking matters into their own hands.
Right, just last week, the CFTC filed lawsuits against Arizona, Connecticut, and Illinois over attempts by lawmakers to close the gaping regulatory hole that the federal government has left wide open.
With the suits claiming that the CFTC alone has the authority to oversee event contracts through the Commodity Exchange Act.
But, at the same time, you have the agency refusing to heed demands from federal lawmakers to actually enforce that law.
And while some members of Congress have proposed new, additional regulations, it’s unclear if they’re ever going to pass — especially given how deeply connected Trump’s family is to prediction markets.
Just go to Zocdoc and download the Zocdoc app for FREE. Then find and book a top-rated doctor today!
-
But then, jumping back into the news, this may come as a shock, but the recipient of the Fifa peace prize just proposed the biggest military budget in modern American history.
With President Trump officially sending his budget request to Congress for the next fiscal year, and by far the biggest expense is 1.5 trillion dollars for the military. [Headline]
Don’t worry, there’s nothing wrong with your ears; I really just said 1.5 trillion.
Right, it feels like it was just yesterday that we surpassed a trillion dollars for the first time, and now Trump wants to bump that up by over 40%. [Quote, find “40”]
We’re talking some 4.5% of the country’s GDP, according to an expert at Brookings, amounting to the largest year-over-year increase since the Korean War. [Quote same link, find “Korean”]
And that doesn’t count the extra 200 billion dollars Trump wants specifically for the war in Iran.
So in the end, if he got everything he wanted, we’d be looking at 1.7 trillion dollars for the self-described Department of War, just over one fiscal year.
With that including pay raises for service members, the Golden Dome missile defense system and Trump’s “golden fleet” of Navy ships, among other things.
The budget also seeks to hand over 40 billion dollars to the Justice Department, a 13% bump, as well as 10 billion for ICE. [Quote, find “40 billion”]
And then, on the other side of the ledger, Trump wants to cut pretty much anything that isn’t blowing up or deporting people.
So under his plan, discretionary non-defense spending would shrink by about 10% to 660 billion dollars. [Quote, find “10%” and “660”]
With the 73 billion dollars in cuts spread over numerous departments and agencies.
So the EPA’s budget is cut in half, Labor loses 3.5 billion, Housing and Urban Development’s down over 10 billion. [Quote same link, find “10.7”]
Another 15 billion’s gone from Energy, NASA’s budget loses about a quarter, Health and Human Services falls over 12%. [Quote, find “15 billion” and “NASA” and “12.5”]
With that HHS cut including five billion dollars for the National Institutes of Health, which, according to the White House, “broke the trust of the American people” with “wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health.” [Quote]
And that’s how they justified most of these cuts, claiming the money was either wasteful or spent on “woke” programs that supposedly discriminate against white people.
Though it’s a little unclear how that applies to federal aid meant to help people afford their heating and cooling bills, or money to respond to natural disasters, train new teachers, root out tax fraud, research cures for diseases and develop clean energy technology. [Quote, find “tax fraud”]
Either way, this signals very clearly what Trump’s policy priorities are: waging war and mass deportations.
Which, as some have pointed out, is rather ironic given that Marco Rubio just criticized Iran for the exact same thing. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 04:38 - 04:49] Caption: “Imagine that Iran, instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran. You’d have a much different clarity.”
But during a private lunch the other day, Trump staked out the polar opposite position, straight up telling Americans, we can’t help you because we’re too busy dropping bombs. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:37 - 00:46, 00:57 - 01:13] Caption: “We can’t take care of daycare. We’re a big country. We have fifty states. We have all these other people. We’re fighting wars. We can’t take care of daycare. … It’s not possible for us to take care of daycare. Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things, they can do it on a state basis. You can’t do it on a federal. We have to take care of one thing: military protection. We have to guard the country.”
And apparently he also has to deck out the White House, because the budget plan does allocate 377 million dollars to executive residence renovations for the current fiscal year and another 174 million for the next year. [Quote, find “174”]
Now overall, Trump’s budget devotes nearly 2.2 trillion dollars to discretionary spending, which doesn’t include mandatory spending like Medicare and Social Security.
So if this went through, you could expect a jaw-dropping increase to the deficit, which was already enormous after the so-called Big Beautiful Bill.
With the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimating that this would add nearly six trillion dollars to the national debt by 2035 when interest is included. [Quote, find “5.8”]
So Democrats have pounced on this, with Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate appropriations committee writing:
“Imagine how many families we could help if, instead of giving the Pentagon more money than they can even figure out what to do with, we cut people’s heating bills in half and made child care affordable for every family in America.” [Quote]
“President Trump wants to slash medical research to fund costly foreign wars. It doesn’t get more backward than that, and the only responsible thing to do with a budget this morally bankrupt is to toss it in the trash.” [Quote same link]
And we’re already seeing this provide ample fodder for Democratic attack ads going into this midterm election cycle.
[Clip, 00:00 - 00:17]
Now to add a big caveat to all this, it’s just a budget proposal; right, Congress has to approve it.
And last year the Republicans rejected most of the deep spending cuts that are now reappearing in this proposal, so they’re expected to water it down again this time.
In fact, a few GOP lawmakers like Susan Collins and Tim Burchett have already expressed reservations about it.
But also I should note that even if Congress doesn’t give him what he wants, many worry that Trump’s just gonna skirt around the law and do it anyway.
Right, because we’ve already seen him refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress and reallocate funds from something Congress did approve to something it didn’t.
-
But first, let me take 45 seconds for a little announcement slash self promo, because I want to talk about Beautiful Bastard for a second. if you bought something from us in, let's say, the past year, there are certain lines, certain pockets of time. And the quality wasn't there.
The prints were fading. The fabric didn't hold up. I heard you, and while a lot of it was connected to the Trump tariff chaos instead of just making excuses like we went back to raw materials and started over. So our new premium blanks are live today.
94, six cotton spandex blend, 170g/m², set in sleeves, double needle top stitch. And if none of that means anything to you, here's what it means. In practice.
a kind of t where you put it on. You look great. And you don't think about it. It's stretchy without being clingy. It's not boxy, not slim. It just works.
launching with eight colorways, five solids, three tie dyes and because I know some of you need to feel it before you believe me. Your first one is just $15.
use code. Feel it at checkout, one per order.
I'd just rather get it in your hands because then, you know, ask you to trust a promise. also, if you do a big order, there's free shipping over 100 bucks. yeah. Link to beautiful Bascombe below.
You can also use the QR code and just let me know what you think.
-
conservative values are about to seep into high schools across the country, influencing what college your child can get into.
Right-wingers are pushing for an exam that’s barely been vetted to make it happen, and major universities like UNC Chapel Hill are on board.
The exam is called the Classic Learning Test, or the CLT, created in 2015 by educator and religious scholar Jeremy Tate.
After his time as a high school teacher, Tate created the CLT to “reconnect knowledge and virtue” for “seekers of truth, goodness, and beauty.” []
He says we should be teaching students about “thinkers and writings that have most meaningfully shaped history and culture,” saying his vision is to put the “very best texts in front of students.” []
The CLT pulls passages from works they say “have had a lasting influence on Western culture and society.” []
But there’s a lot of subjective language here leading to bigger questions, like what counts as “most meaningful,” or the “very best” texts.
And there’s been speculation that for Tate and his board members, the answer is pretty conservative, leaving some worried about what that means for our students.
Reports say more than two dozen of the authors they pull from are Christian saints, theologians or religious thinkers like St. Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther. []
However, Tate says, “I’m not saying anybody needs to be Christian or Catholic, but it is the intellectual tradition that gave birth to the university.” []
Saying, “I don’t think anyone in the West can be considered seriously educated without some knowledge of the Christian intellectual tradition, including the Bible.” []
The people he’s aligned himself with aren’t helping him steer away from the religious connections either.
The test has been embraced by what’s called the “classical education movement” – often Christian and home school communities that want students to learn foundational texts that they say “helped shape American history and culture.” []
The CLT’s advisors also include conservative activists like Christopher Rufo (Roo-foe pronunciation :37), and leaders from religious schools like Hillsdale College.
In fact, reports say the majority of CLT board members work for Christian or conservative organizations. []
The exam also gained traction in 2023 after being supported by DeSantis in the midst of the “Don’t Say Gay” chaos. []
Now, over 350 universities, mostly private Christian colleges, accept their test scores.
So there’s real worry about how pointed this test could be.
Of course, the CLT isn’t the only standardized test that’s been criticized for having conservative implications.
Education leaders have said that the ACT and SAT are “very white-centric.”
There’s also data to support that students from wealthierfamilies perform better on these tests. []
So the conservative problem isn’t exclusive to the CLT, but people still have their concerns about Tate’s approach.
Another issue with the test is that no one knows how effective it is.
As of 2024, there were no peer-reviewed studies that say the CLT can determine college readiness.
We’ve had tens of millions of students taking the SAT and ACT for decades. []
So, the data there is pretty significant.
But, so far, only one recent study from a conservative Christian college in Pennsylvania supports the CLT on this front. []
They looked at 235 students and found that CLT test scores are strongly correlated with first-year college grades.
But the study hasn’t been published in any academic journal, and the author also doesn’t report any data that suggests whether it’s better or worse than the SAT or ACT. []
And that comparison is another important factor here.
Because conservatives have criticized the SAT and ACT for dumbing down their tests by allowing calculators, cutting testing sections and shortening reading passages.
Jonathan Butcher of the Heritage Foundation says, “It is generally bland material that doesn’t have any inherent value in it.” []
On the other hand, the CLT doesn’t allow calculators and uses longer passages from an author bank of more than 160 writers and works dating back to Mesopotamia. []
But with those differences and the more conservative subject matter, testing officials say they aren’t sure if the tests are even similar enough to compare. []
The CLT posted information on how to line up scores between the three tests, but there’s no real evidence to substantiate what they’ve said. [] []
Still, despite all of these concerns, there were 183,000 students who took the CLT last year, which is a far cry from the only 300 who took it a decade ago. [] []
And reports are saying it’s because Republicans have been backing the test.
Indiana state Senator Gary Byrne (R-Byrneville) signed the bill requiring Indiana public universities to accept the CLT, saying he hoped it would “encourage more public schools to introduce students to classic works.”
Arkansas also passed a similar bill, and Ohio is moving toward the same.
States like North Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Wyoming are also now on board. So, why does any of this matter?
Well, even the CLT website says, “teachers will teach towards the test. There is no force on this earth strong enough to prevent that.” []
So there’s no real way to prepare students for the exam without teaching them the culture and religion it leans on.
And that seems unfair to students who may not have grown up with Christian values.
The CLT isn’t a required test, but it does offer students who may not be the best at the SAT or ACT another avenue that leans into material they could have been learning since children’s church.
That option isn’t as enticing for someone who may have been raised as an atheist or Muslim their whole lives.
That creates an unfair competition that could have a real impact on who gets in to what colleges.
On top of that, we should all be worried about how much politics is playing into education here.
Tate hasn’t outright connected the CLT to any political group, but the optics here definitely sway in one direciton.
And even if he’s not connecting it to any politicians, if it’s being used to push a certain political agenda, that’s still an issue.
And from the party that’s been screaming from the rooftops that the liberals are pumping classrooms full of rainbows and all the other things they’re afraid of, this is a pretty hypocritical push on their part.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if this lands us right back in another Supreme Court case with someone trying to fight for one side or the other as the test becomes more widespread.
![[]](https://www.umass.edu/sites/default/files/2025-01/Stephen%20Sireci%20wide.jpeg){kind=link}
![[]](https://www.gcc.edu/Portals/0/EasyDNNnews/Uploads/6433/sign_23_main.jpg){kind=link}
![[]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/64b03fd8d3754a0bbcdf473d/1695639676851-0PQ1WY47CB1R07566W53/iStock-622042632.jpg?format=2500w){kind=link}
