By the logic of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling, I’m now claiming my constitutional right to protect my children from being taught anything about Donald Trump — including the simple, depressing fact that he’s president of the United States.
Let me explain.
I hold a deeply rooted religious belief that lying, bullying, and paying $130,000 in hush money to a porn star are all immoral acts. These are not just political grievances — they are, in my faith, sins.
So I owe a genuine thanks to the Supreme Court, which just ruled that Maryland parents may opt their children out of lessons involving LGBTQ+ content. In its June 27 decision, the Court cited Wisconsin v. Yoder and affirmed that “parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children,” particularly when public education contradicts their moral or spiritual beliefs.
Wonderful. That means I now reserve the right to prevent my children from being exposed to lessons about Donald Trump — because doing so would violate the moral teachings I am obligated to pass on.
Like the Court’s conservative majority, I, too, want my kids to learn the values I hold dear. Values like compassion, truthfulness, humility, and respect for others. Which means I can’t allow any educational material — history textbooks, civics discussions, or classroom debates — that portrays a man found liable for sexual abuse, known for hateful rhetoric, and convicted of 34 felonies as a role model or legitimate leader.
I can’t let them be told it’s okay that the current president once said things like “grab ’em by the pussy,” mocked people with disabilities, or dismissed immigrants as “vermin.” Teaching them Trump is president without moral context would send a message that his behavior is acceptable — and that’s incompatible with my religious convictions.
Justice Alito, in defending the parental right to object to LGBTQ+ books like Love, Violet, wrote that “Americans wish to present a different moral message to their children” — and that schools undermine that message when they present the opposite. By that same standard, exposing my children to Donald Trump’s presidency without critical framing undermines the moral lessons I’m trying to instill.
Because in our home, we teach that words matter. That mocking women’s intelligence, inciting violence, and degrading marginalized communities is not only wrong — it’s spiritually toxic.
So I object. I object to any classroom mention of Trump that treats his presidency as just another chapter in American history. I object to any curriculum that normalizes cruelty, dishonesty, or hate by way of civic instruction.
If the Supreme Court says parents can shield their children from the reality of LGBTQ+ people living and loving, then surely I can shield mine from the damaging glorification of a man who embodies everything we believe is morally wrong.
Let the chaos begin.
