Coming back into the White House for the second time, Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States on Monday, January 20, 2025. The Trump Administration took action immediately, rapidly implementing a variety of policies that stirred support and criticism from Americans. WordsWorth compiled in-depth reports on topics of interest to the MFS student body, highlighting education; immigration; diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (DEIB); healthcare; abortion access; and climate policy.
Produced by Livia Kam '26
On September 7, 2024, during a rally in Mosinee, Wisconsin, Donald Trump vowed to "ultimately eliminate the federal department of education and send education … back to the states."
According to AP News, he plans to end the “wokeness” and “left-wing indoctrination” in schools, specifically curricula that include lessons about racism and gender identity. To enforce his policies, Trump has said that he will use his executive power to cut money for schools that promote these ideas.
At least 55 Education Department workers were put on paid leave on January 31 and will eventually be laid off per Trump's orders. According to AP News, it is not clear why these specific employees were put on leave, but one notable link between them is that most of these workers had taken a voluntary diversity training seminar offered by the Education Department. The seminar has been offered and promoted for years, including during Trump's first term.
The action could disrupt the management of federal student loans, FAFSA, and student financial aid.
Trump is "dedicated to ensuring every child has the opportunity to receive a world-class education," according to a fact sheet from the White House website.
On January 30, Trump promised to strengthen education through "freedom and opportunity" by creating a grant initiative (School Choice Now Act) and merit and need-based scholarships. He also pledged to invest $1.5 billion in the development of public charter schools and to allow parents to "withdraw up to $10,000 tax-free per year from 529 education savings plans to cover public, private, or religious K-12 schooling costs." His order cites his own "historic tax cuts" as the source of funding for these plans.
Additionally, Trump's Executive Order "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" requires the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education to issue guidance to educational institutions that receive federal funds or participate in student loan programs. These measures must comply with the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned affirmative action in higher education. He encouraged those in the private sector to end affirmative action and DEIB, but ordered all federal executive departments and agencies to terminate all "discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities ... "
Finally, Trump's Executive Order "Ending Racial Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling" criticizes schools that promote anti-American ideology. It orders K-12 federal-funded educational institutions to comply with legislation such as Title VI (which "prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin" for federal financial assistance programs and activities) and Title IX (which "prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools" for federal-funded schools). This Order's plan will be created in 90 days with numerous government agencies working alongside it.
Currently, the main purpose that the Department of Education (DOE) serves is to assure an equal opportunity for education to all by providing federal student aid to low-income and special education students in America, as well as grants and loans to help students pay tuition to colleges. Some programs they administer include FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid), Ready to Learn Programming for early learning students, and FDS (Fostering Diverse Schools Demonstration Grants Program). According to PBS News, approximately 14% of all revenue going to public K-12 schools comes from the federal government.
Despite his claims, some skeptics, such as education analyst Neal McClusky, argue Trump's acting on his proposal would be “extremely chaotic and unrealistic” because removing the DOE would dismantle a 45-year-old program and would require firing everybody working there. This has the potential to immediately disrupt federal education and funding programs that students and schools have relied on for decades. Moreover, McClusky and other like-minded individuals believe that Trump lacks the authority to make such decisions, citing that only Congress has the authority to repeal or amend the Department of Education Organization Act, and Congress must also approve of defunding the DOE to completely cut its budget.
On the other hand, according to Eric Hovde, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate from Wisconsin, the closure of the Department of Education could have several positive outcomes. For example, Hovde views the DOE as a source of “bureaucratic overreach,” which means too much control from government officials far removed from local communities. Hovde believes education decisions should be made by parents and local educators, not by distant politicians in Washington, D.C. Hovde also believes that closing the Department of Education could save a lot of money, which he believes would help the country. He strongly opposes what he sees as the department pushing "gender ideology" and other controversial issues.
Abolishing the Department entirely would take an act of Congress, according to BBC. Trump would need congressional approval and a supermajority (60 out of 100 senators) voting in favor. Therefore, passing the removal is improbable since Republicans have a 53-47 majority in the Senate, and passing would require seven Democrats to vote to abolish the agency, which is unlikely to occur.
What does MFS think?
As a school that works to promote the teaching of some topics that the new Trump administration seems to oppose, such as gender identity and systemic racism, it is natural that some of our students here at MFS may have mixed feelings on the matter.
Diversity Committee co-clerk Sophia Lalani ’25 said that her initial thoughts about the idea of removing the DOE were “pretty negative because the DOE is such an important part of providing education to so many students around the country. Taking that away in any capacity can be pretty harmful.”
Arjun Khandhar ’27 believes that an attempt to get rid of the DOE “could seriously backfire on Trump,” in addition to having harmful effects on students nationwide. Khandhar explained that “while the Republicans control the House of Representatives and the Senate, I don’t think he will have full support from all of the branches to pass what he is trying to.”
This further highlights the idea that Trump may struggle to make any serious changes to the DOE, as he does not hold absolute power over the nation’s lawmaking bodies.
How could MFS be affected?
As an independent school rather than a public school, it seems unlikely that MFS would suffer from any serious changes as a result of new curriculum mandates.
Dr. Jackie Dawson, Director of Teaching and Learning and US English teacher, acknowledged that “as an independent school, we are not beholden to any real [state] Department of Education mandates in the same way. We have a lot more flexibility than other schools with our curriculum and what we could do.” Dawson said that any proposed changes on the state or federal level would most likely not “have much of an impact unless there was some sort of an extreme ban” to her knowledge.
Trump’s proposed policies limiting books with certain messages, especially about structural racism and gender identity, may have an impact on the types of books we see in classrooms across the country. For example, Trump is threatening to prevent federal funding to schools who recognize transgender identities.
The New Jersey state government - not the federal Department of Education - provides Moorestown Friends School with many of the books that students read in their English classes.
Dan Sussman, the Upper School English department chair, said MFS “gets to choose which specific books we use state money for.” This would mean that any book bans would not directly impact the English curriculum at MFS, but “if the state can’t buy” certain books due to policy changes, “we would have to make sure we have students and families buy those.”
Sussman does not believe that there is any way curriculum changes, whether they be country, state, or county-wide, would persuade the English department to make any significant changes. ”I wouldn’t see any reason to pay attention to state or local curricular changes unless I happen to catch wind of something else that makes me think, ‘Oh, that’s actually a great idea.,’” said Sussman.
"I wouldn’t see any reason to pay attention to state or local curricular changes." —Dan Sussman
Sources:
Binkley, Collin. “Trump Wants to End ‘wokeness’ in Education. He Has Vowed to Use Federal Money as Leverage.” AP News, 15 Nov. 2024, apnews.com/article/trump-woke-education-2 4f864d83e2f5745d12a79ebac0d7cc4. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Faguy, Ana. “What Is the Department of Education - and Can Trump Dismantle It?” BBC News, BBC, 4 Feb. 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79zxzj90nno. Accessed 07 Feb. 2025.
Kiara Alfonseca and Arthur Jones II. “What Eliminating the Department of Education Could Mean for Students, Schools.” ABC7 New York, 19 Nov. 2024, abc7ny.com/post/donald-trump-transition-news-what-eliminating-department-education-could-mean-students-schools/15559633/. Accessed 23 Nov. 2024.
Ruetten, Olivia. “Eric Hovde Wants to Close the U.S. Department of Education, Calls Agency a ‘Monstrosity.’” Eric Hovde Wants to Close the U.S. Department of Education, Calls Agency a “monstrosity” - The Daily Cardinal, 23 Oct. 2024, www.dailycardinal.com/article/2024/10/eric-hovde-wants-to-close-the-u-s-department-of-education-calls-agency-a-monstrosity. Accessed 02 Jan. 2025.
On September 12, 2024, Donald Trump publicly promised to American citizens on the campaign trail that he would “begin the largest mass deportation mission in the history of our country” if elected, a strong immigration theme throughout his 2024 presidential campaign as well as during his first term in office from 2016 to 2020.
Trump has vowed to use “military and law enforcement to detain the millions of people who are in the United States illegally,” according to the New York Times, and deport migrants with criminal records, undocumented migrants with clean records, and people with Temporary Protected Status who are living in the United States legally.
Trump’s administration has also vowed to conduct mass detentions and deportations of millions of immigrants, including long-time residents, causing breakups of families within the immigrant community according to NBC News.
On Tuesday January 21, the Trump Administration announced that they had erased decades-old policies that prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers from arresting migrants at “sensitive locations” such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals, allowing for large-scale raids on immigrants in “sanctuary places.” The President has encouraged ICE, state, and local governments to work together in catching migrants in these locations in order to achieve his plans for mass deportation.
Already, the Trump Administration has upheld the President’s promises for mass deportation and made strides to crack down on immigration through massive raids by ICE officers, who have arrested 8276 migrants within the past few weeks according to the ICE official account on X. Although 52% of those arrested hold criminal records, the rest do not have any criminal history beyond immigration violations, according to CBS News.
ICE raids have been reported in numerous cities across the nation, including Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Philadelphia. Although some cities like Los Angeles are "sanctuary cities," this does not prevent ICE from going to these areas and tracking down migrants using their own means. In Philadelphia, a raid occurred at a local car wash where migrants were working.
In light of upholding religious freedoms to gather for worship, the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends recently sued the Department of Homeland Security after the Trump administration's recent withdrawal of a policy that stopped ICE from arresting, investigating, and tracking immigrants at "sensitive locations." These locations include schools, hospitals, community centers, and places of religious worship.
Some arrested immigrants are being held at federal prisons, according to AP News, however, it is unclear where these prisons exactly are, as ICE officials have refused to comment on the matter. Many individuals have been taken to local jails, prisons, detention centers, and ICE centers. Other detainees were sent to the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to be processed, a detention facility found to treat its detainees with "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment under international law" according to the United Nations.
President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, has reached out to President Trump, offering to take in arrested immigrants from the United States into the country's own prison systems, which have notably harsh, violent, and overcrowded living conditions, for a "relatively low" cost. Bukele additionally extended the offer to ship U.S. citizens to his prisons as well. Besides existing legal complications, Trump plans to seriously consider this offer for the future.
In addition, President Trump suspended all admission of refugees into the United States until further notice. Trump stated that this ban on refugee arrivals will not be lifted until it is “in the interests of the United States.”
During his first term in 2020, the President-Elect tried to eliminate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, a policy that protects undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children from deportation, yet failed to gain support from the Supreme Court and ultimately was blocked. However, in 2017, Trump issued Executive Order 13769, otherwise known as the “Muslim Ban,” a travel ban that restricted all immigrants from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen, all majority Muslim countries, from setting foot in the United States for 90 days. Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, and was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018 deeming the “Muslim Ban” to be "squarely within the scope of Presidential authority under the INA." The ban was later repealed by President Biden in 2021.
What does MFS think?
The Present
Donald Trump’s victory in the election is troubling for supporters of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) initiatives. Trump has issued at least four executive orders (EO) since his first day in office on January 20, eliminating DEIB policies, funding, and security from federal agencies.
Trump has clear animosity towards the progressive ideals of DEIB, calling them “divisive” and “woke.”
One of the 26 EOs Trump signed on January 20 was “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which terminates all federal government DEIB "mandates, practices, programs, and activities ... " This EO also repealed the Biden Administration’s DEIB programs enacted by Biden’s EO “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” describing it as "public waste and shameful discrimination." Additionally, the EO revoked the EO "Equal Employment Opportunity" from 1965 which required federal contractors to have affirmative action plans.
The Trump Administration has many orders shutting down non-discriminatory practices and affirmative action policies. This includes the EO "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," which states that "illegal DEIA policies not only violate the text and spirit of our longstanding Federal civil-rights laws, they also undermine our national unity." This order targets DEIB initiatives in the private sector, as well as educational institutions.
For private employers, the EO states they must "submit a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy containing recommendations for enforcing federal civil rights laws and taking other appropriate measures to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.”
Already, Trump dismantled DEI programs in the federal government, forcing workers who participated in DEIB training to be put on leave by 5 p.m. on Wednesday, January 22. All web pages regarding DEI policies are taken down. Trump’s DEI executive order entails a complete elimination of DEI programs, policies, practices, union contracts, and worker training programs.
Additionally, Trump enacted many actions against gender-affirming practices. Stating that there are "only two genders, male and female" at his Inauguration, Trump's EOs have clear language and policies that recognize women as biologically female and men as biologically male. The Department of Security is now requiring government-issued ID documents (passports and visas) to reflect the holder's biological sex, instead of gender. Citizens who are non-gender-conforming cannot select the gender-neutral "X" on their passports.
The order also prevents taxpayer funds to be used for gender-transition healthcare and mandates "privacy in intimate spaces" to ensure prison and rape shelters are designated by sex. Additionally, Trump has signed the "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports" EO, which banned trans women in women's sports, and another EO that banned transgender troops in the military.
Finally, in addition to eliminating DEIB practices in federal agencies from funding cuts, Trump has already blamed diversity efforts for the Black Hawk helicopter crash on January 30. He claimed, without evidence, that Pete Buttigieg, secretary of transportation for Biden's administration, ran the Department of Transportation "into the ground with his diversity."
The Past
Trump’s 2020 Executive Order Combatting Race and Sex Stereotyping restricted DEIB-related training programs and funding in federal agencies. According to the policy, teaching topics related to critical race theory and racial stereotyping is “fundamentally racist.” The policy states that encouraging the idea that a certain race or sex is inherently superior to others and that other individuals are inherently oppressed based on the foundation of the U.S. is problematic.
As a result of this policy and other related directives, Trump stated he would cut funding to schools that taught progressive ideals addressing the foundations of systemic racism. While President Joe Biden quickly revoked the act once he was in office, Trump has vowed to reinstate it and eradicate the “woke takeover” from Biden’s Executive Order Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government. Biden’s act instituted an Equity Action Plan that invested in underserved communities and encouraged education for minority races.
Trump’s Agenda 47, an outline of policies for his second term listed on his official website, targets this order from Biden, claiming that the policies encourage decision-making based on skin color and sexual identity instead of merit or qualifications. Trump pledges to “investigate the unlawful discrimination and civil rights abuses carried out by the Biden administration” and eliminate all related initiatives created by Biden.
Additionally, Trump’s 1776 Commission countered Biden’s inclination for a grant program that teaches American history from curriculum cited in The 1619 Project, which encourages US history to be taught through the lens of African Americans. Trump’s commission focuses on teaching the founding of America and nationalist principles with what Trump calls a “patriotic view.”
Finally, Trump’s vice president James David Vance introduced the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 as a senator, which aimed to eliminate federal DEI programs and prevent DEI mandates in federal contracting and grants, prioritizing “merit and qualification over identity-based quotas.”
The Future
Federal contractors and subcontractors are evaluating their DEIB policies to conform to Trump's mandates to avoid potential legal risk. They are recommended to end their affirmative action policies by the April 21, 2025 deadline.
While none of Trump's EOs and anti-discrimination policies define what constitutes a DEIB program or policy, many private organizations are assessing their DEIB initiatives and hiring practices to comply with the law.
Several companies have already eliminated their DEIB policies, such as Lowe's, Harley Davidson, Meta, and McDonalds. Specifically, Meta's chief diversity officer, Maxine Williams, took on a new role regarding accessibility and engagement instead of diversity. The company got rid of the requirements of hiring from underrepresented backgrounds.
LGBTQ legal advocates, such as Jennifer C. Pizer from Lambda Legal, planned to sue the administration for the anti-DEIB EOs. It is important to note that many of these actions will take time for agencies to issue Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, go through comments, and publish the final orders, according to an expert from ABC.
Many DEIB leaders are concerned about Trump’s anti-DEIB spreading to a local scale. There could be conflicts regarding the legality of DEIB programs as well as educational institutions losing funding if they don’t abide by Trump’s stances. Similarly, MFS students find themselves uncertain about the future of marginalized groups in America.
Multiracial Affinity Group facilitator Owen Rodwell-Simon ’26 stated that they are “worried” about the Trump Administration’s crackdown on DEIB initiatives as well as the “current treatment of marginalized groups under Republican state [governments].” They explained that racism and discrimination could get worse, “despite Trump trying to get people of color voters on his side.”
Cloud Blackburn ’25 is “concerned for the right to same-sex marriage” especially seeing Roe v. Wade overturned by the Supreme Court. Eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion, the Supreme Court may use the same logic to reconsider decisions on same-sex marriage.
Trump has not explicitly targeted same-sex marriages, but he has said the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision was “settled.” However, Trump may continue to appoint more right-wing justices to the Supreme Court once in office, who, according to CNN, tend to “transform certain areas of the law” with those that relate to “religious liberty.” This could lead to a reinvestigation of the case, although justices’ stances on same-sex marriage is unclear.
"He’s the product of, historically, what has been at least two decades of rising white nationalism in this country that is pretty much all unchecked." — Mary Anne Henderson
DEIB Coordinator and US History Teacher Mary Anne Henderson expressed fear for what Trump in office again could do for DEIB initiatives with the "rapid fire way he is putting out Executive Orders that jeopardize the lives, careers, and futures of different marginalized groups." They said, "In the struggle to keep up, I worry that people will lose sight of the larger historical site of trends at play. This is not about one man or even one administration — it's something much deeper."
Henderson mentioned the frustration towards policies that target transgender people, which has already been on the rise for several years, including under the Biden administration. Additionally, they noted Roe v. Wade was unable to be codified into law even under Democratic presidents and supermajorities in Congress.
According to Henderson, the racist and sexist rhetoric commonly present in Trump’s speeches shows that America is “spiraling back” to a time where it is “acceptable to actually say the nasty thing out loud instead of needing to use the dog whistle,” while still being able to win the popular and electoral vote. In the context of politics, the term “dog whistle” refers to using suggestive language to get support from a particular group of people while not offending or provoking the opposition.
"This is not about one man or even one administration— it's something much deeper." — Mary Anne Henderson
“He said awful things about Mexicans, about Haitians, about all sorts of folk. He’s the product of, historically, what has been at least two decades of rising white nationalism in this country that is pretty much all unchecked,” said Henderson.
Rodwell-Simon discussed how Trump’s federal DEIB bans would impact education, “We’re lucky we go to a private school, so that is better than going to a public school in terms of protecting the integrity of education.”
They add that “this idea of banning the woke agenda is trying to ban marginalized truths and truth in general, and I feel as though that will … negatively [impact] future generations to the point where they just aren’t socially literate. It’s just not good for the country and the future of society.”
“This idea of banning the woke agenda is trying to ban marginalized truths and truth in general, and I feel as though that will … negatively [impact] future generations to the point where they just aren’t socially literate. It’s just not good for the country and the future of society.” — Owen Rodwell-Simon
Diversity Clerk Miles Wilkins ’25 stated what he and Diversity Clerk Sophia Lalani ’25 do to ensure quality DEIB practices. He listens to student feedback and implements it “in a way that’s productive in forms of conversation and activities” to allow students to talk across differing opinions. According to Wilkins, an example of this is the Diversity Meeting on November 6, during which space was given to discuss the election after hearing that the previous Meeting had not given enough time to debrief the election.
Additionally, he “makes sure everyone feels valued in terms of who they are and what values they support.” He explained, “We try to make sure everyone can incorporate how they feel … [while] making sure it’s also factual at the same time.”
Henderson acknowledged that talking about politics is difficult due to fears of “saying the wrong thing,” as politics have become very “personality [and] fear-based.”
They suggested leaning into “our Quaker values, [which state that] everybody does have a light inside of them,” and to “value each other as human beings.” Henderson, along with DEIB Coordinator Chanelle Walker and US Director Noah Rachlin, strives to “create a supportive atmosphere where it feels like students can actually share what they’re thinking.” They wish to cultivate an environment where diverse thoughts are encouraged and valued, even when discussing controversial topics.
Works Cited
Cosenza, Willow. “What a Second Presidential Term for Donald Trump Means for DEI Leaders: Navigating Uncertainty and Seizing Opportunities.” Seramount, 26 Nov. 2024, seramount.com/articles/what-a-second-presidential-term-for-donald-trump-means-for-dei-leaders-navigating-uncertainty-and-seizing-opportunities/. Accessed 09 Dec. 2024.
“Executive Orders Target DEI Programs and Gender Protections.” – Publications, www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/01/executive-orders-target-dei-programs-and-gender-protections. Accessed 06 Feb. 2025.
“Newsline: Learn About President Trump’s Executive Orders on DEI and Immigration.” ABC National, www.abc.org/News-Media/Newsline/learn-about-president-trumps-executive-orders-on-dei-and-immigration. Accessed 06 Feb. 2025.
Yoshino, Kenji, et al. “What Trump’s Second Term Could Mean for DEI.” Harvard Business Review, 14 Nov. 2024, hbr.org/2024/11/what-trumps-second-term-could-mean-for-dei. Accessed 09 Dec. 2024.
Zhou, Li. “The Future of Same-Sex Marriage under a Second Trump Administration, Explained.” Vox, 17 Nov. 2024, www.vox.com/politics/385968/same-sex-marriage-trump-administration. Accessed 12 Jan. 2025.
With President Donald Trump’s entering the White House, proposed changes to healthcare policies have sparked significant concern and discussion among many Americans, including MFS community members with differing opinions on the subject.
Since Trump's inauguration, many policies regarding healthcare were instated. Trump has signed an Executive Order that withdrew the US from the World Health Organization (WHO) due to its "mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic ... its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from inappropriate political influences of WHO member states." This is the second time he has tried to withdraw from the WHO.
According to TIME, the withdrawal makes the US and other countries "less safe from infectious diseases and other public-health threats." Additionally, the US would provide a year-long notice and pay any remaining balance to leave, yet it is unclear if Congress should implement the withdrawal.
Argentina followed in the footsteps of the US by also withdrawing from WHO on February 5. Argentina president Javier Milei claimed the organization was "harmful" and "executing arm of what was the largest social-control experiment in history."
Trump's memo that froze any federal funding going against his agenda disrupts the daily operations of health clinics and nonprofit organizations that largely serve rural and low-income patients. However, U.S. District Judge Loren Ali Khan quickly challenged the plan, pausing it and rescinding the White House Office of Management and Budget. Yet there is still confusion over the status and scope of the administration’s efforts to stop funding, according to Fed Scoop.
Under Trump's new Executive Order "Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation," the government will not "fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another" for people under the age of 19. The order also "rigorously enforces all laws that prohibit or limit these destructive and life-altering procedures."
The Trump administration was quickly sued over this order, alleging that the law "discriminates against transgender people and goes beyond Trump's authority as president."
Additionally, on February 7, 2025, the Trump administration announced that there would be nearly $4 billion worth of cuts made to medical research funding in 22 states. However, this order was temporarily blocked on February 10 with the attorney generals of the states deciding to sue.
Finally, according to the Wall Street Journal, "people familiar with the matter" claim that the White House is working on a new Executive Order to fire thousands of US Department of Human and Health Services workers, although it is not finalized. The HHS employs more than 80,000 people and includes the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the FDA, and CDC.
During his campaign in the 2024 election, Trump stated that he would make changes to the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare, including making it “much better” and “far less expensive.”
Before being elected, Vice President JD Vance stated that Trump had “a plan for how to fix American healthcare,” which consists of “deregulating the insurance market so that people can choose a plan that actually makes sense for them.” Additionally, Trump spent much of his previous term attempting to change and repeal the Affordable Care Act.
Trump’s deregulation of the insurance market would result in a decrease in “federal health and insurance regulations.” Many people, like experts from NY Magazine, believe that these deregulation efforts may increase healthcare insurance prices for those with preexisting conditions and those with intense treatments. Preexisting conditions are the health issues that an individual may have, specifically before their new health coverage begins. Additionally, a deregulation of the insurance market could create an increase in competition between insurance providers.
What does MFS think?
Student Luke Iacono ’25 stated that Trump’s presidency will “probably make [access to healthcare] more restrictive.” He added that while he doesn't believe it will impact him, he said he believes that people who received insurance under the Affordable Care Act “may no longer be able to receive coverage.”
The general MFS student body is not very impassioned about this election’s ramifications on healthcare, as demonstrated when many students invited to comment had no stance on the matter. However, many faculty members do have strong opinions on the future of healthcare and insurance in America.
In response to healthcare insurance prices, Upper School Psychologist Julie Lyons argued that “healthcare should not be a privilege but a right, and Americans should all have access to healthcare.”
Healthcare will “get worse in terms of healthcare costs and healthcare outcomes” for himself and the people around him. — Frank Karioris
History teacher Frank Karioris added to that sentiment, stating that, in terms of healthcare financing, the American government “[spends] the most for some of the worst outcomes.” Karioris added that a “stronger set of regulations” on healthcare and insurance companies would help improve access to and practices in healthcare.
In terms of changes to healthcare in America resulting from Trump's election, MFS Nurse Jen Raue finds it “ concerning that people may not have healthcare in the future.”
Karioris agreed, saying that he believes that for himself and the people around him, “it will get worse for healthcare, healthcare costs and healthcare outcomes” in America when Trump enters office.
Whitney Davidson, an Upper School history teacher, noted concerns about eligibility for healthcare insurance and the possibility of “a repeal of the ACA or changes that will enable healthcare to be denied to people.” She added that preexisting conditions, which she said she has, are something she worries about in terms of eligibility.
History teacher Paul Rizzo stated that regarding healthcare changes, price is a “major concern.” He added that while many of the possible changes to healthcare are negative, a possible change in competition for insurance companies can be seen as a positive. He explained that “competition between the different insurance companies is good when there is transparency between them, what people can choose, and the prices.”
Within the classrooms of MFS, the topic of abortion is a subject that is rarely mentioned in the Upper School curriculum, despite MFS being a school that focuses on talking across differences and discussing uncomfortable topics.
Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, abortion access within states has constantly been fluctuating. NPR states that “State laws [about abortion] keep changing – with new bans taking effect in some places while new protections are enacted in others.”
The results of the 2024 Presidential Election have left the status of abortion at risk of being fully banned in the United States. On January 24, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order that ends the funding and promotion of abortions through federal taxpayer dollars, overturning Biden's Protecting Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services Executive Order. Alongside this, Trump also signed a Presidential Memorandum that promotes the Mexico City policy, which claims to “stop the use of federal taxpayer dollars for abortion overseas."
Additionally, Trump's actions showcase his opposition to abortion, being the first president to attend the March for Life rally in Washington. He also rejoined the Geneva Consensus Declaration— a coalition of nations "united in support of pro-life and pro-women policies" established by Trump in his first term— to assert that there is no international right to abortion and protect the health of women throughout every stage of life. There are 40 signatories from member states to the Declaration.
However, in the past, Trump often asserted that abortion should be determined by state laws, affirming Roe v. Wade, saying "My view is now that we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint, the states will determine by vote or legislation, or perhaps both, and whatever they decide must be the law of the land" in a video from CBS News.
What does MFS think?
In regards to covering abortion at MFS, according to Upper School Health Teacher Bryan Wright, the topic of abortion is not covered at all during his health classes. However, Wright explained the reason behind the lack of abortion discussion in his lessons is that the topic is not part of the current curriculum for health classes.
When asked what steps would be necessary to take in order to have the topic of abortion implemented into the curriculum, Wright stated, “If the student population has questions about this subject content they should petition for it to be added to the curriculum. [Then], once conversations with administration have occurred, [new] curriculum can be written and reviewed for the delivery of content in class.”
Upper School Director and Health and Physical Education Department Chair Noah Rachlin shared that one reason behind the lack of abortion education is not having ample time to add another topic to the health curriculum.
“The nature of the way health courses meet, it's like three or four meetings every two weeks, and so sometimes [we have] days off and it can really impact the curriculum.”
Rachlin also expressed his perspective on both the importance of having discussions about abortion and what is needed in order to achieve this goal.
“It's important to create opportunities to talk about things like current events, politics, those sorts of topics, and it's hard to figure out the right way to do that so students express their feelings in a manner where they feel good about it,” said Rachlin.
He shared that if students felt as though there are things within the Upper School that are not being taught, the immediate pathway for making change would be attending agenda and speaking up about what students believe should be taught.
Rachlin also acknowledged the lack of discussion surrounding abortion in the Upper School and admitted the difficulties in holding such conversations around this type of topic.
“There’s a pretty broad sense of agreement across teachers, students, and administrators that it's kind of odd that we don't talk about [abortion].”
Sophomore Riti Moorthy ’27 agreed with Rachlin’s statement about how students may feel hesitant to speak up about their opinions on abortion and explained why she believes discussions about abortion aren't present at MFS.
“The main problem on why we can't have those discussions is [because] it's hard for teachers to facilitate class discussions and safe spaces for students when we are having discussions about things that are essentially taking [away] the right to healthcare for half the population,” said Moorthy.
Rachlin shared his opinion on what form of discussion would be most productive for students to discuss abortion.
“I think some students want a space to just be able to discuss or debate with their peers. I think other students feel like they don't know enough [about the topic of abortion], and they don’t love the sort of open forum where students might be going at each other and they’d prefer [an educational discussion]." —Noah Rachlin.
“I think some students want a space to just be able to discuss or debate with their peers. I think other students feel like they don't know enough [about the topic of abortion], and they don’t love the sort of open forum where students might be going at each other and they’d prefer [an educational discussion],” said Rachlin. “I don't think there's a single answer.”
Anjali Shah '26, who recently wrote an editorial for WordsWorth critiquing the 11th-grade Sex Ed program, shared her disappointment in the way the MFS Health curriculum handles the topic of abortion.
“[Teachers] don't teach about it in health, and I think that's a really big part of sex ed[ucation]. I just took [sex education] last quarter, and they don't really talk about abortion, [even though] I think that's where we can destigmatize abortion. We touched on family planning in health class, and we should talk about other outcomes, whether that's abortion or giving up [offspring] for adoption.”
Shah had a unique opinion on where the implication of abortion education at MFS should take place.
“I actually don't think it should be taught as a political topic at all. [The topic of abortion] has become so polarized because it's become political. I think we should do anything we can to not talk about abortion in a political way, and talk about it in a way that's actually important to our life in a biological way,” said Shah.
Nia Rivers ’27 agreed with Shah on the importance of having talks about abortion at school but vocalized her opinion of the importance of talking about it from a political perspective.
“I think that abortion should be taught in our school or just schools in general. It's also a political thing, and talking about political stuff in classrooms [is] extremely important, since going into the real world we won't have these safe spaces anymore,” said Rivers.
Rivers added, “I don't like how we don't talk about [abortion] in school. It's extremely important to talk about it, and the commotion around [the topic] is something we are all seeing in America currently, so we should be talking about it in classrooms. I think not being able to talk about it in school is taking away the aspects of safe spaces in classrooms.”
However, Moorthy disagreed with the push for abortion discussion and schools, stating that they “would rather not be discussing [abortion] than be put in a class where I feel unsafe in my own body because of the people around me’s [opinions].”
With President Donald Trump in office, America anticipates a sweeping rollback of national climate regulations and a significant shift in its approach to environmental policy. This contrast to the Biden Administration’s regulatory climate policies signals a change in the country’s environmental landscape, prompting MFS students to reflect on the environmental impact of Trump’s term.
In his initial weeks back in office, President Trump enacted several executive orders that reshape U.S. environmental policy. As expected, Trump quickly withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, eliminating an international check on U.S. emissions.
Additionally, in his inaugural address, Trump declared a national energy emergency, promoting “oil and gas expansion including through federal use of eminent domain and the Defense Production Act, which allow the government to use private land and resources to produce goods deemed to be a national necessity.” This move reflects a prioritization of American energy production over environmental standards, a hallmark of many of Trump’s environmental policies.
Along these lines, Trump aims to curb political advocacy for electric vehicles — a cornerstone of Biden’s climate policies — while rolling back environmental justice initiatives. Within just his first month in office, environmental regulations have been weakened, and Trump's policies show no signs of reversing course.
Biden’s efforts to enhance climate regulation primarily utilized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a U.S. governmental body responsible for environmental preservation, by broadening its authority. In contrast, Trump’s Administration is expected to reduce the EPA’s power and decrease federal spending on climate initiatives. Notably, Trump plans to repeal a multi-pollutant emissions standard “that would have mandated an 80% reduction in projected emissions in the oil & gas sector.”
The future of the EPA is now in the hands of New York congressman Lee Zeldin, Trump’s appointee to run the agency. Zeldin’s appointment has sparked mixed reactions, with many pointing out his shifting positions on climate issues. While Zeldin did sponsor the Carbon Capture Improvement Act and pledged for "clean air, land, and water for every American" from the Powering the Great American Comeback initiative, he has voted against efforts including the Clean Air Act, fracking bans, and marine protection programs. Like Trump, Zeldin has pledged to “pursue energy dominance,” signaling an intent to prioritize fossil fuel production and other nonrenewable energy sources for political and economic benefits rather than imposing stricter regulations that would benefit the environment.
Additionally, among the World Resources Institute’s list are multiple items referencing the economic implications of the incoming environmental policy changes.
What does MFS think?
Vikram Verma ’25 completed his Capstone project on “the intersection of politics, the economy, and ESG companies.” ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) refers to investments that are environmentally responsible. Through his project, he “analyzed the different connections that occur between the aspects” by watching ESG stocks over a year.
After completing this research, Verma weighed in on the potential impact that Trump’s policies will have on ESG companies and the economy as a whole.
“ESG has been starting to increase in popularity and importance in other countries, but especially now in the U.S.,” said Verma. “With Trump’s election, I think it’s going to slow down that progress and limit a lot of the environmentally-focused companies.”
In addition to hurting the economic prosperity of sustainable companies, Verma noted that “big companies involved in fuel are going to move away from sustainable ways and revert back to fossil fuels.” Given this, Trump's policies may incentivize companies to reverse their environmental progress while economically disadvantaging those that pursue sustainable efforts.
However, the economic impacts of Trump’s policies extend beyond influencing the market viability of sustainable practices; Trump's plans are likely to lead to an approximate 50 billion dollar loss in American exports. According to The Guardian, if Trump follows through on his promised regulatory repeals, the U.S. risks losing its leadership in the clean energy market, potentially falling so far behind that it forfeits its position entirely – harming America’s standing in an evolving global economy.
Zaydan Lalani ’26 shared that he doesn’t “see [Trump’s climate policy] having a significant effect on [his] life over the next four years.” However, he emphasized that the effects of these policies will largely remain indirect during Trump’s presidency. Lalani explained, “The fear isn’t that it’ll have a huge effect in the next four years, but that negligence now has implications for what the world will look like by the end of the century.”
Credits: Title page image (White House 2012) from René DeAnda on Unsplash under the Unsplash License. Article title images made with elements from Canva under the Canva license.
Credits:
By: Natalie Choi '27, Maya DeAndrea '25, Keva Elie '26, Emmie Huynh '27, Livia Kam '26, Matthew Strauss '27. Produced by Livia Kam '26.