(Daily Signal)—Virtually every law school in America must be accredited by the American Bar Association, an organization that has abused this position of trust to push a radical leftist agenda on law students, including policies that violate the law itself.
The American Bar Association has long held an undeserved position as a vaunted legal institution—largely through the imprimatur certain government largesse has given it.
For instance, since 1965, when Congress passed the Higher Education Act, the U.S. Department of Education has recognized the ABA as the sole accrediting agency for American law schools.
On top of that, nearly every state requires those seeking admission to its bar to have graduated from an ABA-accredited law school.
Yet the ABA’s radical leftist agenda has been painfully apparent with several of its recent actions, including its dangerous statement that the Equal Rights Amendment had been ratified as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution when, in fact, it had not been. The ABA’s position was so partisan and radical that even then-President Joe Biden’s archivist of the United States, who certifies new amendments to the Constitution, rejected it out of hand.
Additionally, the ABA has also sued the Trump administration and issued mendacious statements about the need for lawyers to stand up to protect the rule of law in response to President Donald Trump’s actions. Interestingly, the ABA remained eerily silent when Democrat senators such as Chuck Schumer and Sheldon Whitehouse threatened sitting Supreme Court justices and made clear their intent to undermine public confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Given its overt opposition and disdain for Trump (and really anyone who doesn’t embrace a radical leftist agenda), it makes sense that conservative lawyers are using common sense to call for removing the ABA from its privileged position of vetting judicial nominees to the federal bench—a position the Trump Justice Department seems ready to embrace.
Despite all of these misdeeds, the ABA’s most problematic positions have been when it has tried to use its quasi-governmental accrediting power to force law schools to violate the law.
Yes, you heard that right. The ABA, with its stated mission of serving the legal profession and the public “by defending liberty and delivering justice as the national representative of the legal profession,” has tried to force law schools to break the law. (Set aside the facts that the ABA hasn’t defended liberty or delivered justice and certainly isn’t a national representative of the legal profession.)
Specifically, the ABA has tried to force law schools to discriminate in admissions and employment on the basis of race.
No, this isn’t a tale from bygone days. Instead, it’s a sad story playing out in real time today.
What’s particularly galling has been the ABA’s position that its own rules trump any other law—even the U.S. Constitution!
When the ABA first received pushback to its proposed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Standard (Standard 206) that law schools must meet to keep accreditation, it had the audacity to issue a statement saying, “The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of race, color, ethnicity, … [etc.] in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a schools noncompliance with Standard 206.”
In other words, the ABA said that schools had to comply with its discriminatory race-based standards for admissions and employment, regardless of what the Constitution or the law states.
Lest its intent be misunderstood, it later clarified: “To ensure the effective educational use of diversity, a law school should include among its faculty, staff, and student [body] members of all underrepresented groups, but should be particularly focused on those groups that historically have been underrepresented in the legal profession because of race or ethnicity.”
Worse still, as Attorney General Pam Bondi recently pointed out, the ABA left law schools in legal limbo for more than 18 months after the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that such racial discrimination is illegal—though that already should have been clear.
It’s a welcome development that the ABA temporarily suspended enforcement of Standard 206, but as Bondi pointed out, this temporary halt isn’t enough. In noting its temporary pause on enforcement, the ABA said that its “commitment to ensuring access to legal education to all people, including those who have been historically excluded from the legal profession … has not changed.” In other words, as Bondi said, its “commitment to DEI” remains in place.
In a letter to ABA leaders, Bondi made clear that “if diversity is defined in terms of race and sex outcomes, [as the ABA continues to do regardless of Standard 206], universities cannot lawfully pursue diversity by any means.”
Bondi noted that the ABA’s “status as the sole accrediting body of American law schools is a privilege, and mandatory diversity objectives are an abuse of that privilege, which is subject to revocation.” She continued, saying that even “if it does not come to that, it is unclear how state bars can lawfully continue to require prospective lawyers to attend ABA-accredited law schools if the [ABA] continues to abuse its privilege in this way.”
She closed by making clear that the “Department of Justice stands ready to take every action necessary to prevent further abuse.”
And to that, I say kudos to Bondi for standing ready to take these long-overdue actions.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.