US Politics

Brian Stelter rebukes CNN on final show: ‘It’s not partisan to stand up to demagogues’ Host says, ‘It is not partisan to stand up for decency and democracy and dialogue,’ after CNN cancels media show Reliable Sources Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s media affairs show Reliable Sources which was cancelled last week after 30 years on air, used his final episode Sunday to make a pointed rebuke of the network’s new bosses and their intention to pursue a more “neutral voice” to its coverage.“It is not partisan to stand up for decency and democracy and dialogue,” Stelter said in his final monologue, which he stressed was unvetted by CNN management before he delivered it live. “It is not partisan to stand up to demagogues – it’s required, it’s patriotic.”He added: “We must make sure we do not give a platform to those who are lying to our faces.”CNN gave Stelter his marching orders last Wednesday, just four months after the network came under new leadership appointed by its owners, Warner Brothers Discovery. CNN head Chris Licht, who took over after the February departure of Jeff Zucker, has indicated that he wants to tone down the opinion quotient of its shows and “return” to an older, straighter and in his view less overtly leftwing style of reporting.It is perhaps predictable that Stelter was to become one of the first casualties among CNN’s stars under the new leadership. As NPR’s media correspondent David Folkenflik explained, Stelter was a thorn in the side of the Donald Trump White House, regularly exposing its lies and misinformation.As a result, he was “targeted for frequent criticism from conservatives for his coverage of the media during the Trump years”.Since Stelter’s booting, New York’s medialand has been rife with speculation about its causation. Some have pointed the finger at John Malone, a powerful Discovery investor who has led the charge that CNN is too partisan.Malone has criticized the network for broadcasting too much commentary and not enough on-the-ground reporting. Last November, Malone told CNBC that he would like to see CNN “evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing”.Other speculation has focused on Stelter’s CNN salary – reported to be almost $1m a year – amid intense pressure to cut the network’s budget given heavy debts within the new media conglomerate.So far the number of star scalps has been relatively small. A week before Stelter was axed, CNN’s chief legal analyst for 20 years, Jeffrey Toobin, announced that he was leaving.Toobin had previously been suspended from the network for eight months after he exposed his genitals during a Zoom call with colleagues of his then-other media outlet, the New Yorker.With Stelter’s departure, the focus at CNN is now likely to shift to whether further casualties of the new “neutral” reporting policy lie ahead. Speculation rippled through social media that Don Lemon and Jim Acosta, two of the more outspoken hosts, might be vulnerable, but according to the entertainment news website The Wrap they are safe for now.Part of Stelter’s argument as host of Reliable Sources, CNN’s longest-running show until its demise, was that it is the role of the media to hold power to account. That function was especially critical in the febrile age of Trump.With Trump hinting at another presidential run in 2024, Stelter appealed on Sunday to the bosses who had just fired him to remain resolute. “The watchword here is accountability,” he said. “CNN needs to be strong. I believe America needs CNN to be strong.”In his at times emotional last address on Reliable Sources, the largely bald-headed Stelter recalled his astonishment at becoming a TV star. “I never thought I’d actually be on TV – I just liked writing about TV,” he said. “I know this is going to sound like BS, but I thought I didn’t have enough hair to be on TV.”TopicsCNNTV newsTelevision industryUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

‘The world flipped upside down’: Will end of Roe galvanize Democrats’ base in midterms? Democrats believe that signs of a brewing backlash after the loss of reproduction choice will reshape the battle for control of Congress and and statehouses this fallFor years, Democrats warned that abortion rights were under grave threat. Across the US, antiabortion activists in red states chipped away at access and pushed for conservative judges to secure their gains. Yet for many Americans, the prospect of losing the constitutional right to abortion that had existed since 1973 remained worrying but remote.That all changed in June, when in Dobbs v Jackson, the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, the 49-year-old ruling which had established the right.Since then, bans have taken effect in at least 10 states. Republicans are rushing ahead with new restrictions and stirring fears that other rights, including same-sex marriage and access to contraception, could be vulnerable too.And yet, from rural Minnesota to ruby red Kansas and a conservative corner of Nebraska, there are signs of a brewing backlash that Democrats believe will reshape the battle for control of Congress and statehouses this fall.Republicans are “the dog that caught the bus”, said Cecile Richards, a former head of Planned Parenthood. “This is what they’ve been wanting for years. Now they own it.”White House officials, Democratic candidates and party strategists say the loss of reproductive choice has not only galvanized their once-disillusioned base but is strengthening Democrats’ appeal among independent and Republican-leaning women in suburbs who were key to the party’s recent victories.The landslide vote to protect abortion rights in conservative Kansas earlier this month further emboldened Democrats – and emphasized that Republicans risk overreaching on one of the most emotionally charged issues in American life.“The world just completely flipped upside down after the Dobbs decision,” said Richards, now co-chair at American Bridge 21st Century, a liberal super Pac. “We’re no longer defending a right. We now actually have to fight to get a right back.”‘A top-tier issue’Republicans doubt abortion will be a decisive factor in a midterm election shaped by anxiety over high gas prices and inflation and an unpopular Democratic president.“Every public and private poll shows inflation and the economy are the top issues headed into the midterms,” said Mike Berg, a spokesman for the Republican National Congressional Committee. “Democrats are desperate to talk about anything else because they have a disastrous record on both of those issues.”But Democrats are forging ahead, lashing Republicans over their uncompromising stances and sometimes bizarre rhetoric on abortion.Underscoring their confidence in the salience of abortion this election cycle, Democrats are spending heavily on television ads on the subject. One particularly searing ad from Stacey Abrams, the nominee for governor in Georgia, features a somber montage of women warning that women could be “criminalized” for seeking abortions if Brian Kemp, the Republican governor, is re-elected.“The only way to stop this attack on the women of Georgia,” the women say, “is to stop Brian Kemp.”Many of their ads aim to use Republicans’ words against them, as part of a broader effort by Democrats to cast the GOP as too extreme.In Michigan, where voters may decide to enshrine abortion protections in the state constitution in November, the Democratic Governors Association launched an ad attacking the Republican nominee, Tudor Dixon, over her opposition to abortion, without exception for rape or incest.In a similar vein, an ad from the the Democratic nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, features his far-right opponent, Doug Mastriano, saying “I don’t give a way for exceptions”, including when the life of the mother is at risk. Polling has shown that most Americans support at least some abortion rights. According to the Pew Research Center, around 60% say abortion should be legal in all or most cases while just 8% say it should be illegal with no exceptions.The aggressive messaging from Democrats is a reminder of how rapidly the politics of abortion have shifted.Molly Murphy, a Democratic pollster and strategist who has studied public opinion on abortion, said: “Six months ago, if you asked voters, ‘What’s the top priority that you want elected leaders to focus on,’ abortion might get 3%, 4%, 5% at most. Now it really is a top-tier issue, only behind inflation and the economy.”Murphy said anti-abortion’s resounding defeat in the Kansas referendum showed voters were motivated by the opportunity “to stop something bad from happening”. To channel that fury, she said, Democrats must convince voters Republicans are not just opposed to abortion but a threat to it.Some Democrats are adopting Republican language about government overreach on issues like masking to accuse their opponents of infringing on individual rights and freedoms when it comes to women’s reproductive health. It is all part of a broader strategy to cast Republicans as extremists determined to strip Americans of a right they have come to rely.The pitch is similar to Democrats’ messaging in 2018, when they stormed to victory in the House after lashing Republicans over attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, said Camille Rivera, a Democratic strategist.“As we learned with Obamacare, once you have a right, you don’t want really don’t want that right taken away,” she said.Another key question for this November is just how much abortion rights will resonate among independent women in battleground suburbs who have deep concerns about the economy. Sarah Longwell, a moderate Republican strategist, said abortion was usually not the first issue raised in focus groups with swing voters. But when prompted, the discussion around abortion often became personal.“The thing that happens when you start talking to a group of women about abortion is they immediately start telling stories about complications and the things that can go wrong during a pregnancy,” she said in a recent interview.What is clear, Longwell said, is that women, even those who call themselves “pro-life”, are “deeply uncomfortable with the idea of getting between women and their doctors on decisions that could put their lives at risk”.‘We are living it’Republicans are largely shying away from the issue on the campaign trail. With total bans proving deeply unpopular, some candidates are softening their rhetoric, emphasizing support for exceptions and for the health and well-being of women. In Nevada, a battleground state, the Republican candidate for Senate, Adam Laxalt, has argued that his personal opposition to abortion would not change protections already in place.“My views have not shifted the policy in Nevada, nor has the ruling in the Dobbs case,” Laxalt wrote earlier this month. “Voters in 1990 determined that Nevada is and will remain a pro-choice state.”But the issue is hard to ignore. Harrowing stories have spread. A 10-year-old girl who was raped had to travel from Ohio to Indiana to get an abortion. Weeks later, Indiana became the first state in the post-Roe era to adopt a near-total ban. This week, a judge in Florida told a 16-year-old she was not “not sufficiently mature” to decide whether to have an abortion.“We are no longer speaking about this as a hypothetical,” Murphy said. “We are living it.”Among Kansans who registered to vote in the wake of the Dobbs ruling, Democrats held an eight-point advantage, according to data from TargetSmart. Among those newly registered voters, 70% were women.Elsewhere, in a pair of post-Roe special House elections, Democrats outperformed expectations, boosted by strong turnout in suburban areas.In Minnesota’s first district, the Democrat lost by just four points. Donald Trump won there by more than 10 in 2020. The trend was more pronounced in a June election in Nebraska’s first district. Two years ago, Trump won there by nearly 15 points. This year, the Republican won by six.Analysts caution against drawing firm conclusions from such a small sampling. Republicans only need to win a handful of seats to gain control of the House, as they are favored to do, while the 50-50 Senate remains agenuine toss-up.A special election in New York on Tuesday may offer more clues. In the most competitive House race since Roe fell, the Democrat, Pat Ryan, has made abortion central to his campaign. The Republican, Marc Molinaro, has focused on the economy and inflation.Urging New Yorkers to vote, Ryan said “choice” and “freedom” were both “on the ballot”.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022Roe v WadeUS politicsAbortionHealthDemocratsfeaturesReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

The Guardian’s US southern bureau chief, Oliver Laughland, spent six months following what happened when a progressive Black district attorney was elected in Louisiana, the heart of the deep south. He had promised sweeping reforms across New Orleans, including opening up a civil rights division to look over old cases. Kuantay Reeder has been in Louisiana’s ‘Angola’ prison since 1995 for a murder he says he didn’t commit. Would the division be able to help him?

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

This week we are revisiting some of our favourite episodes from the year so far. This episode was first broadcast on 6 May. It’s 2020. New Orleans. The most incarcerated city, in the most incarcerated US state. The city has elected a progressive Black district attorney, Jason Williams, who promises to change the system from within. One of the first things Williams does after he wins is to set up a new department in the district attorney’s office – the civil rights division – led by Emily Maw. A small team of lawyers and investigators is tasked with looking back through more than 1,000 old cases, examining whether each convicted person should still be in prison. Twenty-five years earlier, Kuantay Reeder says he was playing basketball when Mark, his childhood friend, was killed outside a food store. Kuantay was arrested and eventually found guilty of Mark’s murder, a crime Kuantay says he didn’t commit. He was prosecuted by the office of one of the city’s old DAs, Harry Connick, infamous for his hardline tactics. We hear from Prof Andrea Armstrong, a leading US expert on prison and jail conditions, and former city judge Calvin Johnson, who describes how Connick’s office was associated with frequent rights violations at the time Reeder was prosecuted. Read Oliver’s reporting on his six months with the division: Inside the division: how a small team of US prosecutors fight decades of shocking injustice Life in prison for stealing $20: how the Division is taking apart brutal criminal sentences More

Walmart expands abortion coverage for employees after Roe overturnedMemo to staff says that new healthcare policy will also offer ‘travel support’ for workers seeking abortions The US’s largest private employer, Walmart, is expanding its abortion coverage for employees after staying largely mum on the issue following the supreme court ruling that in June scrapped a nationwide right to abortion.In a memo sent to employees Friday, the retail giant said its healthcare plans will cover abortion for employees “when there is a health risk to the mother, rape or incest, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage or lack of fetal viability”. The plans will be “effective immediately”, the memo added.The company’s benefits plan had previously covered abortion only in cases “when the health of the mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, the fetus could not survive the birthing process, or death would be imminent after birth”, according to a copy of the policy viewed by the Associated Press but not confirmed by Walmart.Walmart’s chief people officer, Donna Morris, said in the memo to staff that the new policy will also offer “travel support” for workers seeking abortions covered under its healthcare plans – as well as their dependents – so they can access services that are not available within 100 miles of their locations.“Given how recent events are resulting in state-by-state healthcare environments, we will expand our travel coverage,” the memo said.Walmart employs nearly 1.6 million people in the US. The company is headquartered in Arkansas, where abortion is banned under all circumstances unless the procedure is needed to protect the life of the mother in a medical emergency. There are no exceptions for rape or incest.That means under the revised policy, Walmart employees can travel out of the state – or any other state that bans abortion for rape and incest – to obtain the procedure through the retailer’s health plans.According to the memo, which CNN also reviewed, Morris said that Walmart decided to make the changes after “listening to our associates about what’s important to them”, adding that “we strive to provide quality, competitive and accessible health coverage that supports you and your families”.The company said it will also launch a center that provides employees fertility services, including in vitro fertilization. Additionally, it vowed to add surrogacy support and increase its financial aid for adoptions from $5,000 to $20,000. In June, Walmart said it would expand its offering of doulas – or people who assist women during pregnancies – to address racial disparities in maternal care.Some other large companies – including Meta, American Express and Bank of America – have said they will cover travel costs for their employees in the aftermath of the high court ruling that tossed out the federal abortion rights established by the landmark decision in the 1973 case titled Roe v Wade, including elective abortions. But a Walmart spokesperson did not immediately reply for a request for comment on whether any of the company’s revised policy will cover elective abortions as well.“It’s a step in the right direction, but it’s simply not far enough for a company that employs that many women,” said Bianca Agustin, director of the corporate accountability program for United for Respect, a group that advocates for Walmart workers. She said the organization will be incorporating “safe abortions” for employees in their list of demands pressing the company for better pay and benefits.TopicsWalmartAbortionUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Cheney vows to fight other Republicans who embrace Trump’s election lieCheney says two Republican US senators – Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley – have both made themselves ‘unfit for future office’ The former top Republican Liz Cheney, who lost her Wyoming seat in Congress last week when she was beaten in a primary by a Donald Trump-endorsed challenger, is threatening to turn her political muscle against other prominent politicians in her party who have embraced the former president’s attack on democracy.In an interview with ABC News aired on Sunday, she said that some of the best known Republican figures are now within her sights. She name-checked Kevin McCarthy, Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley – all of whom have openly supported Trump’s lie that electoral fraudsters stole the 2020 presidential race from him and handed it to his Democratic rival, Joe Biden.In the wake of her Wyoming defeat, Cheney has announced plans to set up a new political organization and has indicated that she is considering a 2024 presidential run designed to stop Trump from re-entering the White House.Her comments on Sunday suggest that her plans to confront election deniers go much wider than Trump himself.“I’m going to be very focused on working to ensure that we can do everything we can [to] not … elect election deniers,” she said. “I’m going to work against those people, I’m going to work to support their opponents.”Cheney said that two Republican US senators – Cruz from Texas and Hawley from Missouri – have both made themselves “unfit for future office”. She said that “both know what the role of Congress is with respect to presidential elections and yet both took steps that fundamentally threatened the constitutional order”.Cruz was seminal in the Senate in devising a plot to block certification of Biden’s 2020 victory in six battleground states. Hawley was the first senator to object to Biden’s victory and famously raised his clenched fist to protesters outside the US Capitol on 6 January shortly before the violence erupted. He was later revealed to have fled the Capitol building running once the insurrection started.Cheney also had tough words in the ABC News interview for DeSantis, the governor of Florida, and McCarthy, the current House minority leader. McCarthy is a leading candidate to become Speaker should the Republicans take back the House of Representatives in November.McCarthy was initially critical of Trump’s role in unleashing the violent storming of the Capitol, privately telling fellow party leaders “I’ve had it with this guy”. But since then he has swung behind Trump’s anti-democratic movement.“My views on Kevin McCarthy are very clear,” Cheney said. “He’s been completely unfaithful to the constitution. … I don’t believe he should be the Speaker of the House.”She also accused DeSantis of campaigning for election deniers. “This is something that people have got to have real pause about,” Cheney said.The Wyoming congresswoman is vice-chairperson of the House committee which has been investigating the January 6 Capitol attack. She was also one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the breach of the Capitol compound – eight of whom will not be returning to Congress in January.The fact that those who stood up against Trump’s attempt to subvert American democracy have been almost universally forced from the party was revealing, she said, adding: “It says people continue to believe the lie, they continue to believe what [Trump] is saying which is very dangerous.”She continued: “It also tells you that large portions of our party, including the leadership of our party both at a state level in Wyoming as well as a national level with the RNC [Republican National Committee], is very sick.”Cheney would not specify whether or not she would run for the presidency in two years’ time. Nor would she say, in that case, whether she would run as a Republican or independent.She did say that if she ran it would be to win.Cheney’s direct threat to Trump and his most senior coterie of Republicans in Congress comes at a time of gathering peril for the former president. The FBI search of his home in Mar-a-Lago in Florida has riled up his supporters but has also heightened risk of prosecution for harboring confidential documents that could endanger national security.Earlier this month Trump invoked his constitutional right against self-incrimination in response to questions when he was deposed in a lawsuit brought by the attorney general of New York over his company’s financial statements. Last week Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was called before a special grand jury in Atlanta, Georgia, investigating efforts to overturn the election results in that state.On Sunday Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina who was involved in Trump’s pressure campaign on Georgia officials to overturn the state’s election results, was granted a temporary reprieve by an appeals court from having to testify before the same grand jury in Fulton county.TopicsRepublicansLiz CheneyUS politicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020newsReuse this content More

Appeals court pauses order for Graham to testify before Atlanta grand juryRepublican senator was ordered on Friday to appear before grand jury investigating efforts to overturn 2020 election A federal appeals court on Sunday temporarily blocked a judge’s order requiring Republican senator Lindsey Graham to testify before a Georgia grand jury investigating efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in that state.The judge who ordered Graham’s appearance in front of the grand jury – Leigh Martin May – should determine whether the subpoena requiring the South Carolina senator testify before the panel should be quashed or modified in accordance with the US constitution’s speech or debate clause.Generally, scholars interpret the clause as shielding federal lawmakers from being compelled to face questioning from law enforcement in certain cases, and Graham had cited the provision in challenging a subpoena calling for him to testify before the Atlanta-based grand jury in question.May last week had ruled that prosecutors demonstrated “a special need for Mr Graham’s testimony on issues relating to alleged attempts to influence or disrupt the law administration of Georgia’s 2020 elections” despite the senator’s challenge. But Graham, who had been ordered to testify in the grand jury investigation on Tuesday, had indicated he would appeal on May’s ruling to a higher court.Judges Charles Wilson, Kevin Newsom and Britt Grant of the 11th US circuit court of appeals then ruled on Sunday that it would send the case back to May for her to determine whether Graham’s subpoena should at least be changed.May should solicit briefs on the issue from both sides on an expedited schedule, and after she rules again, the case would return to the appellate court, Sunday’s order said.All told, the order almost certainly means it could be a significant while before Graham appears in front of grand jurors – and even then, it may only be in a limited way, University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias said to the Guardian on Sunday.Graham drew the grand jury investigation’s interest because he placed two calls to the Georgia’s top election official in 2020 and asked about ways to invalidate certain mail-in votes that helped buoy Joe Biden to victory over Donald Trump in that year’s presidential race.The senator and prominent Trump supporter is considered a subject – rather than a target – of the investigation being conducted by the grand jury in Atlanta. That panel is weighing the filing of criminal charges against the former Republican president and his allies for their alleged attempts to deny Georgia voters’ rejection of Trump in 2020 amid a desperate effort to keep him in the Oval Office despite Biden’s electoral college victory over him.Targets of the investigation include Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s former attorney.The Georgia grand jury investigation has applied considerable legal pressure on Trump, who is also facing a US justice department investigation over his unlawful retention of government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort as well as an inquiry by New York state officials into his business practices there.Trump on Sunday went on his Truth Social platform and sought to persuade his followers that his multi-front legal struggle illustrated Democrats’ fear that he would again clinch the Republican presidential nomination for the 2024 election and challenge their leader Biden.Trump, who as of Sunday had not yet officially declared that he would once more pursue the White House in 2024, added: “I … may just have to [run] again.”TopicsGeorgiaUS politicsDonald TrumpUS elections 2020RepublicansnewsReuse this content More

Jill Biden tests negative for Covid and will end isolation in South CarolinaFirst lady will travel to Delaware to rejoin the president after getting negative results from two consecutive tests First lady Jill Biden has tested negative for Covid-19 and will leave South Carolina – where she had isolated since vacationing with Joe Biden – and rejoin the president at their Delaware beach home, her office said Sunday.The White House announced on Tuesday that the first lady, 71, who like her husband has been twice-vaccinated and twice-boosted with the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, had tested positive for the coronavirus. She first had symptoms on Monday.The president, 79, recovered from a rebound case of the virus on 7 August.Jill Biden was prescribed the antiviral drug Paxlovid and isolated at the Kiawah Island vacation home for five days before receiving negative results from two consecutive Covid-19 tests, spokesperson Elizabeth Alexander said. Jill Biden planned to travel to Delaware later Sunday.TopicsJill BidenJoe BidenUS politicsCoronavirusInfectious diseasesnewsReuse this content More

Alarm over Texas law forcing schools to display ‘In God We Trust’ signsCivil rights advocates say it ‘imposes religion’ as new law requires public campuses to display any donated items bearing that phrase Civil rights advocates are ringing alarm bells about officials distributing “In God We Trust” posters in Texas schools after a state law took effect requiring public campuses to display any donated items bearing that phrase.“These posters demonstrate the more casual ways a state can impose religion on the public,” Sophie Ellman-Golan of Jews For Racial & Economic Justice (JFREJ) told the Guardian. “Alone, they’re a basic violation of the separation of church and state. But in the broader context, it’s hard not to see them as part of the larger Christian nationalist project.”The Southlake Anti-Racism Coalition (SARC) said they were “disturbed” by the precedent the posters’ distribution could set.“SARC is disturbed by the precedent displaying these posters in every school will set and the chilling effect this blatant intrusion of religion in what should be a secular public institution will have on the student body, especially those who do not practice the dominant Christian faith,” the group said in a statement.While the phrase doesn’t explicitly mention any specific religion, many argue that “In God We Trust” has long been used as a tool to forward Christian nationalism.Christians were instrumental in putting the phrase on coins during the civil war, Kristina Lee of Colorado State University wrote last year, and has since used the phrase as supposed evidence to prove the United States is a Christian nation.The flags’ distribution in Texas is not the first time that a government body has imposed the phrase.In Chesapeake, Virginia, the city council ruled in 2021 that every city vehicle was to carry “In God We Trust” motto, a move that would require a budget of about $87,000.Ellman-Golan of JFREJ said the issue is deeply connected to other concerns, such as women’s health and education in Texas.“We know that state governments in places like Texas are codifying white Christian nationalist patriarchy into law at an alarming rate,” she added. “The most dangerous examples of this are bans on abortion and gender-affirming care, as well as efforts to censor education.”Texas state senator Bryan Hughes, who is Republican and said he is the author of the “In God We Trust Act,” celebrated on Twitter, saying that the motto “asserts our collective trust in a sovereign God”.Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a Muslim civil rights organization, welcomed the initiative and said this might allow for an opportunity for students to learn about other faiths.“The notion of trusting God is common across faiths,” CAIR spokesperson Corey Saylor told the Guardian. “Applied through that lens, the posters can foster discussions among Texas students about their various faiths and enhance understanding.”Saylor did not comment about how safe Texas’s Muslim students might feel in Texas about their religion. About half of Muslim students in Texas’s Dallas-Fort Worth area have reported being bullied at school over their faith, according to a 2020 CAIR report.Sometimes in Texas, a fear of people from non-Christian backgrounds has prompted their being reported to police.For instance, In 2015, a 14-year-old Muslim boy in a Texas suburb was arrested after he brought a clock he made to school, and a teacher fearing it was a bomb called police on him. A few months later, a 12-year-old Sikh boy in another Texas suburb was arrested after a bully told his teacher he was carrying a bomb in his backpack.Saylor said the “In God We Trust” initiative’s success depended on “students of minority faiths’ [feeling] supported by educators to express how they understand trusting God”.TopicsTexasUS educationUS politicsReligionnewsReuse this content More