President Donald Trump has sparked a media frenzy by reposting a theory on his Truth Social account that former President Joe Biden was replaced by a clone after allegedly dying in 2020.
This unexpected online post, which was initially shared by a user named llijh, generated a storm of reactions across social media platforms, with some expressing disbelief and others scrutinizing the implications for President Biden's health, as the Daily Mail reports.
The origin of this sensational claim comes from an individual asserting that former President Biden had been "executed" in 2020 and subsequently substituted by a "robotic engineered" double. Trump, known for his provocative social media presence, shared this theory without adding his commentary, significantly amplifying its reach and stirring a torrent of responses online.
Reactions to Trump's sharing of this theory have been varied, capturing a spectrum of social media commentary. Many were shocked and critical of this action, questioning the former president's motives in giving credence to such a speculative claim. On the other hand, some used this moment to reiterate their longstanding skepticism toward Biden's presidency, including a few who claimed prior to 2020 that Biden had been "gone" and replaced at some point during his campaign.
This is not the first time Trump has been linked with conspiracy theories. Throughout his political career, he has been at the center of several controversies, including perpetuating the narrative concerning Barack Obama's birthplace. Additionally, Trump's assertions about supposed election fraud in 2020 and allegations involving Ted Cruz's father and the JFK assassination have remained focal points in his controversial legacy.
Recent developments regarding Biden's health have added another layer to the public's interest in these unfounded allegations. Earlier revelations around Biden's aggressive prostate cancer diagnosis sparked concern and raised questions about his ability to navigate the demanding role of the presidency effectively.
Compounding these health concerns is a recent publication titled Original Sin, which has provoked further debate by addressing worries over Biden's cognitive abilities in office. These disclosures have fueled the public dialogue as people weigh the potential implications on current and future political landscapes.
The reemergence of Biden's health in the public discourse was also influenced by his recent presidential campaign decisions. Following what many described as a lackluster performance in a critical debate, Biden announced his withdrawal from the 2024 presidential race. This unexpected move cleared the way for Vice President Kamala Harris to pursue the nomination, although ultimately, she was unsuccessful against Trump.
As the 2024 election concluded with Trump's victory, the political milieu continues to embolden opinions and conspiracy theories surrounding Biden's presidency. These theories shape how some view current political reality, impacting both online discourse and political narratives.
Social media platforms have played a pivotal role in the proliferation of the clone theory, with users debating, mocking, and at times endorsing the claims Trump propagated. Despite the baseless nature of the conspiracy, the quick spread underscores the potent influence social media has in shaping political conversations.
Comments in response to Trump's post varied widely, with some commentators expressing surprise over Trump's choice to amplify such a theory. One commenter remarked on their incredulity at seeing Trump engage with the post, whereas others recalled Trump's previous conspiracy-driven narratives and saw this behavior as a continuation of those tendencies.
For some, this episode reinforces their perception of Trump as a political figure willing to embrace and promote controversial ideas without faithfully evaluating their veracity. Others interpret it as a strategic maneuver to destabilize public confidence in President Biden, continuing the partisan positions that have characterized American politics in recent years.
Social media conversations are indicative of the deep divides that persist in political affinity and belief systems among the public. While some move entirely to dismiss such claims, others see them as validation of their skepticism towards mainstream political figures and narratives.
In a move that has drawn international attention, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth highlighted the pressing threat posed by China during a recent defense summit in Singapore. The event, known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, serves as a key venue where leaders from across Asia gather to discuss security and defense matters.
Hegseth's remarks emphasized the Trump administration's focus on the Indo-Pacific region and raised alarms about Beijing's potential aggression towards Taiwan, as the Daily Mail reports.
Speaking at Asia's cornerstone forum for defense discussions, Hegseth called for increased vigilance among U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific area. He warned of the "real, and it could be imminent" threat China poses, particularly regarding its ambitions towards Taiwan. These warnings reflected mounting tensions as China considers Taiwan part of its territory and has shown increased military activity around the island.
Taiwan's government, however, maintains that its future decisions are solely in the hands of its people. Hegseth cautioned that any military attempts by China to take control of Taiwan would have dire consequences not only for the region but globally. The gravity of the potential conflict has led to heightened discussions about defense strategies and resource allocation among allied nations.
Adding to the urgency, Hegseth reiterated that the current U.S. administration is prioritizing the Indo-Pacific as a critical area, encouraging partners in the area to enhance their defense budgets. His statements were poised to influence the defense strategies of allied countries, possibly stirring some concern among them.
Interestingly, Hegseth's remarks included references to defense spending trends beyond the Indo-Pacific. He pointed out how European nations, under the influence of figures like French President Emmanuel Macron, are aiming to spend 5% of their GDP on defense initiatives. Comparatively, in Asia, the average defense spending was recorded at 1.5% of GDP in the previous year.
This disparity highlights the different regional approaches to defense budgets and strategic priorities. Hegseth suggested that European allies focus primarily on fortifying their continent so the U.S. could better allocate its resources towards the security challenges in the Indo-Pacific.
The meeting in Singapore also noted an absence of high-level Chinese participation, with China's Defense Minister Dong Jun choosing not to attend. Instead, an academic group represented China, indicating potential diplomatic tensions and disagreements with the current global defense discourse.
Hegseth's tour of the Indo-Pacific comes amid adjustments in U.S. defense strategies, such as shifting some air defense systems to the Middle East. These temporary reassessments might be part of broader tactical realignments to strengthen immediate concerns.
Previously focusing on domestic matters, Hegseth has now underscored the importance of "restoring the warrior ethos" within the U.S. military apparatus. Addressing some of the critiques his strong tone has garnered, Hegseth stated, "We are not here to pressure...countries to embrace or adopt our politics or ideology."
He emphasized that U.S. policy seeks to respect allies' traditions and cooperate based on shared objectives. Nonetheless, the firm stance and rhetoric were not without controversy.
Some, including Democrat Sen. Tammy Duckworth, felt aspects of Hegseth's commentary were less than supportive for partners in the Indo-Pacific, reflecting a tension in balancing diplomatic sensitivity with strategic directness.
The dialogue in Singapore, revolving significantly around Taiwan and China, has undoubtedly added complexity to international relations in the region. With Hegseth's call to view European defense initiatives as exemplary for scaling campaigns, the international community is prompted to reassess its collaborative strategies.
The recommendations from the U.S. have laid the groundwork for significant considerations in defense spending among Indo-Pacific allies. These suggestions are likely to spark wider debates regarding the effective distribution of resources and roles within strategic partnerships.
Concluding his address, Hegseth made clear his intent for continued collaboration, noting, "We respect you, your traditions, and your militaries. And we want to work with you where our shared interests align." This message underlines a commitment to fostering unity while navigating the complexities of global defense pragmatically.
President Donald Trump has set the stage for another high-stakes judicial battle with his latest nomination. Emil Bove, a former personal attorney who played a key role in Trump’s legal battles, is now poised for a prestigious seat on the US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit.
According to CNN, Trump announced Bove’s nomination in a social media post, praising him as “SMART, TOUGH, and respected by everyone.” The president also claimed Bove would “end the Weaponization of Justice” and “restore the Rule of Law.” The nomination signals Trump’s continued effort to reshape the judiciary with loyalists who align with his political agenda.
Bove, currently a top Justice Department official, has been a central figure in several controversial DOJ actions, including pressuring prosecutors to drop corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams. His aggressive tactics have drawn sharp criticism from Democrats, who are expected to challenge his nomination during confirmation hearings.
During his time at the Justice Department, Bove quickly became one of the most influential political appointees in the Trump administration. Shortly after his appointment, he issued a memo threatening to prosecute state and local officials who resisted federal immigration enforcement. The move sparked backlash from critics who accused the administration of overreach.
Bove also led efforts to dismiss charges against Mayor Adams, a decision that triggered mass resignations among prosecutors in New York and Washington, DC. Additionally, he ordered the firing of eight senior FBI officials and demanded records on thousands of employees involved in investigations related to the January 6 Capitol riot. These actions have fueled accusations that Bove was weaponizing the DOJ for political purposes.
Supporters, however, argue that Bove was enforcing the administration’s policies with necessary rigor. Todd Blanche, the DOJ’s deputy attorney general and a former Trump attorney, praised Bove in a social media post, calling him a “brilliant legal mind” with “integrity.”
Democrats are preparing to scrutinize Bove’s record during his Senate confirmation hearing. They are expected to question his role in the DOJ’s aggressive tactics, including the targeting of FBI personnel and the dismissal of high-profile cases. Some legal experts warn that his nomination could further politicize the judiciary.
Critics also point to Bove’s involvement in the Weaponization Working Group, a DOJ initiative examining current and former prosecutors and FBI employees. Opponents argue the group is being used to retaliate against those who investigated Trump. However, Trump allies insist the effort is necessary to root out bias in federal law enforcement.
Bove’s nomination is part of a broader trend of Trump elevating former personal attorneys to powerful positions. John Sauer, the solicitor general, and Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, also previously represented Trump. The pattern has raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the independence of the judiciary.
Before joining the DOJ, Bove assisted in defending Trump in multiple criminal cases, including the New York hush-money trial, where Trump was found guilty on all 34 counts. Those charges were later dismissed after Trump’s reelection. Bove’s close ties to the president have made him a polarizing figure in legal circles.
Despite the controversies, Trump’s base views Bove as a staunch defender of the administration’s agenda. His nomination to the 3rd Circuit, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands, could have long-lasting implications for federal jurisprudence in the region. The court has previously ruled on high-profile cases involving election laws and executive power.
When reached for comment by CNN, Bove declined to discuss the nomination. His silence has done little to quell the debate surrounding his potential confirmation.
Emil Bove’s nomination now heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Democrats will likely grill him on his DOJ record. Republicans, who hold a narrow majority, are expected to push for his confirmation, framing him as a qualified jurist committed to upholding the law. The battle could mirror past contentious judicial fights under Trump.
If confirmed, Bove would join a growing list of Trump-appointed judges shaping the federal judiciary. His elevation would further solidify the administration’s influence on the courts, a key priority for conservatives. The outcome of his confirmation could also set the tone for future nominations as Trump continues his second term.
With political tensions running high, Bove’s nomination is poised to become another flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over the judiciary’s role in American governance. Both sides are bracing for a fierce debate that could have lasting consequences for the rule of law.
Donald Trump and his family have ignited a storm of reaction after revealing a massive new gamble on cryptocurrency markets. The bold move, involving billions of dollars and some of the world’s most controversial digital assets, has political and financial circles buzzing.
According to Daily Mail, President Trump’s Trump Media & Technology Group plans to pour $3 billion into cryptocurrencies, with Bitcoin as the crown jewel. This unprecedented push aims to position the United States as the unquestioned “crypto capital of the world” and create one of the largest corporate Bitcoin treasuries anywhere.
The plan, announced just ahead of a major cryptocurrency investor meeting in Las Vegas, involves $2 billion in fresh equity from roughly 50 institutional investors and another $1 billion from a convertible bond sale. Trump’s sons Don Jr. and Eric, Vice President JD Vance, and crypto adviser David Sacks are all set to play key roles, signaling just how central digital currencies have become to the Trump agenda.
Trump Media & Technology Group, the company behind Truth Social, is leading the charge. Despite losses and modest ad revenue since going public, the company’s new strategy is to diversify away from social media and aggressively enter the financial sector. CEO Devin Nunes described Bitcoin as “an apex instrument of financial freedom” and emphasized that cryptocurrency will now be a foundational part of the company’s asset base.
President Trump remains the largest shareholder, with over 50 percent of Trump Media’s stock—valued at about $2.7 billion. The initial infusion of cash is expected to rapidly establish the Trumps as leading players in the crypto world, leveraging the family’s name and business network to amass digital reserves at unprecedented scale.
The timing is deliberate. Trump’s announcement comes as the White House seeks to showcase American innovation and financial independence and just as a high-profile crypto gathering convenes in Las Vegas. The company’s pivot follows a string of Trump-branded digital ventures, including NFTs, a meme coin, and stakes in a new bitcoin producer and crypto exchange.
The move has triggered fierce debate in Washington and beyond. Supporters of the Trump family’s plan see it as a patriotic bet on American technological leadership. They argue that by embracing cryptocurrency, the administration is fostering financial freedom and keeping the U.S. at the forefront of a booming new sector.
Critics, however, see ulterior motives and potential conflicts of interest. Democrats and ethics watchdogs have slammed the president’s family for turning the White House into a launchpad for personal financial gain, pointing to a private dinner at Trump’s golf club attended by more than 200 wealthy crypto investors. Some have accused the Trump family of using political power to attract foreign investment without adequate transparency or background checks.
President Trump pushed back at the criticism, defending his family’s business acumen while accusing President Biden’s family, especially Hunter Biden, of far worse. “Ultimately, no matter what it is, I always put the country way ahead of the business,” Trump told dinner guests, contrasting his actions with the Biden family’s controversial art sales.
As the Trump crypto initiative takes off, the president’s inner circle is rallying around the new venture. Don Jr. and Eric Trump have been instrumental in driving the family’s digital asset strategy, while Vice President JD Vance and adviser David Sacks are expected to speak at the upcoming Las Vegas conference. The event is designed to showcase the administration’s commitment to innovation and reward top backers of the $TRUMP meme coin.
The atmosphere has been electric, with investors posting photos from exclusive dinners and touting the promise of Trump-branded crypto projects. Many of these backers are foreign nationals, raising additional questions about the vetting process and national security.
Blockquote from Devin Nunes, CEO of Trump Media & Technology Group:
We view Bitcoin as an apex instrument of financial freedom, and now Trump Media will hold cryptocurrency as a crucial part of our assets.
Nevertheless, the president’s team insists that all investments are above board and that the real priority is American prosperity. They point to the Trump family’s long history of successful business ventures and argue that this latest move simply reflects changing times.
The Trump family’s cryptocurrency ambitions have not escaped political heat, with some observers warning of financial risks and ethical pitfalls. Trump Media reported a staggering $32 million loss last quarter on just $820,000 in revenue, fueling skepticism about the company’s viability and the wisdom of such a massive bet on volatile digital assets.
Democrats continue to question the ethics of raising funds from largely anonymous and sometimes foreign investors. Trump allies, on the other hand, see the attacks as politically motivated and dismiss concerns about transparency as media-driven hysteria.
A mid-flight disturbance on a plane traveling from Tokyo to Houston resulted in an unexpected stop in Seattle.
A male passenger attempted to open the emergency exit during the journey, but his actions were thwarted by two former military personnel and several flight attendants, as the Daily Mail reports.
The incident unfolded nine hours into the All Nippon Airways flight on Saturday morning. A male passenger, whose identity remains undisclosed, alarmingly attempted to initiate the opening of an emergency exit door. Thanks to the immediate intervention by two military veterans on board, the man was successfully restrained. Flight attendants assisted in subduing the individual, ultimately securing him with seat bindings.
Recognizing the severity of the incident, the pilot decided to reroute the plane to Seattle's SeaTac Airport. This decision was necessitated by the potential threat the passenger posed to the aircraft's safety.
Upon arrival at SeaTac around 4:20 a.m., local law enforcement was there to greet the flight. Officers removed the man from the plane, and he was swiftly transported to a medical facility for what airport officials referred to as a "medical episode." As of Saturday night, he had not been formally charged with any crimes.
According to a passenger named Ashley, the ordeal began when she noticed the man rise quickly from his seat. Initially, she assumed he might not be feeling well, but it soon became clear that his intentions were more alarming. "He got up in a hurry - I just assumed he was sick. But then he went for the emergency exit, and two men jumped into action," Ashley recounted.
These two men, veterans of the armed forces, promptly sprang into action to contain the situation. Ashley explained that one identified himself as having served in the Navy, while the other did not specify his branch of service. "They zip-tied him to the seats directly behind me," Ashley remarked, commending their calm and collected intervention.
Throughout the ordeal, the former soldiers maintained a watchful eye over the restrained passenger for over an hour. Their immediate response was pivotal in neutralizing what could have developed into a dire scenario.
The disruption did not end with the initial incident, as another passenger later exhibited odd behavior. Ashley described the second individual's abrupt trip to the restroom, which caused additional concern among those on board. This unexpected commotion only added to the tension, leaving many passengers visibly uneasy.
Reflecting on her experience, Ashley expressed her reluctance to sit in the exit row again. "I won’t be sitting in an exit row again. It was terrifying." Her gratitude for the swift action of the military veterans was evident. "I want to say thank you to those citizens who took control. I don't know if I could've done that. I wouldn't have known what to do."
Chris Guizlo, spokesman for the airport, highlighted the severe nature of the situation, stating that emergency services and police were contacted due to a passenger's attempt to open the emergency door mid-air. This audacious act prompted immediate precautionary actions to ensure the safety of everyone on board.
In conversation with the primary suspect, an officer outlined the next steps following their landing: "Once I take you out of the seat, we're going to escort you off the flight, okay? If you try to fight us, force will be used against you."
The identity and condition of the individual who instigated the emergency remain undisclosed. However, it’s important to note that due to the cabin's air pressure differences at high altitudes, airplane doors typically cannot be opened during flight.
For flight crew and passengers alike, the unexpected diversion to Seattle was an unsettling experience, highlighting the unpredictable nature of air travel. Nevertheless, the courageous actions of those who stepped forward ensured that everyone else remained safe.
As investigations continue, travelers aboard that flight are left to process the harrowing experience they narrowly escaped. While charges are yet to be determined, the decisive response to the incident serves as a testament to the vigilance and bravery of those on board.
Chief Justice John Roberts has introduced a new twist in the unfolding legal drama surrounding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by temporarily suspending discovery activities in an ongoing lawsuit examining whether DOGE falls under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requirements applicable to federal entities.
Roberts’ intervention serves as an administrative freeze on a lower court's decision, which permitted limited discovery into DOGE's status, as The Hill reports, and is an outcome sure to be welcomed by the Trump administration.
The main contention in the case is whether DOGE qualifies as a federal agency, consequently subjecting it to FOIA obligations. This decision comes at a pivotal time as it halts the current investigative efforts.
The controversy began when Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) initiated a lawsuit pushing for transparency in DOGE's operations. CREW seeks to ensure public access to documents that could illuminate the inner workings of this government body. However, the Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, objects to this characterization, maintaining that DOGE operates as a presidential advisory body within the Executive Office of the President, not as a traditional agency.
Earlier in the legal proceedings, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that limited discovery could proceed. His order included an examination of DOGE employees, recommendations, and other related documents. Additionally, Judge Cooper ordered a deposition of acting DOGE administrator Amy Gleason.
This decision was met with sharp criticism from Sauer, who argued that the order effectively grants CREW a premature victory by assuming DOGE's agency status without a proper basis. According to Sauer, the process reversed the typical FOIA process, which typically begins with determining if FOIA applies.
Sauer’s arguments found temporary success when Roberts issued a temporary halt. This pause offers time to determine whether to uphold the lower court’s ruling on discovery.
The appeal escalated to the Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals allowed the discovery process to continue. This progression underscores the significant legal questions surrounding the classification of government entities and the scope of FOIA. As the case unfolds, the Supreme Court's role will be crucial in delineating the boundaries of investigative transparency.
Meanwhile, CREW’s lawyer Nikhel Sus argues that the government's emergency appeal seeks a premature resolution. Sus maintains that the core issue is whether the appellate court made an error in permitting the district court’s limited discovery to determine DOGE’s status.
Elon Musk's previous involvement as a special government employee has also caught public attention. His recent decision to step back adds another dimension to the narrative, sparking curiosity about influential figures tied to this case.
The lawsuit spearheaded by CREW is emblematic of several legal challenges aimed at accessing DOGE's internal records across multiple agencies. This reflects a broader debate over government transparency and accountability. The case tests the limits of how advisory bodies interact with open records laws.
As this legal battle continues, the implications could ripple beyond DOGE, potentially affecting the classification and transparency of other government entities. The outcome may redefine how advisory bodies like DOGE are perceived within the framework of government operations.
For now, the pause by Chief Justice Roberts grants temporary relief to DOGE as higher courts deliberate on fundamental questions about the agency's classification. The judicial outcome has the potential to influence FOIA contexts and public access to agency operations.
This case will likely foster debates surrounding the definitions and reach of government transparency laws. As interested parties wait for the courts' definitive answer, this unfolding story illustrates the tensions between government oversight and operational privacy in the political realm.
In summary, the DOGE case unveils critical inquiries into governmental transparency and the statutory categorization of presidential advisory entities. As the wait continues for the court's forthcoming decision, the stakes remain high, and the national interest is assured.
Democrats and Republicans face off as Supreme Court justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, reach a stalemate over religious school funding in Oklahoma. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s unexpected recusal leaves supporters and critics of religious charter schools scrambling for answers.
A 4-4 split decision from the Supreme Court on Thursday effectively upholds Oklahoma’s ban on public funds for St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, marking a significant setback for advocates of religious charter schools. According to Fox News, justices issued a brief order affirming the lower court’s ruling, with Justice Barrett recusing herself from the case.
This deadlock leaves in place the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s determination that directing state funds to a Catholic charter school would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. With no majority opinion, the legal landscape for religious charter schools remains as divided as ever.
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School—approved by the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board in June 2023—sought to become the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school. The school agreed to comply with federal, state, and local education laws and promised to be open to all students, mirroring traditional public schools.
However, St. Isidore officials made clear that their institution “fully embraces the teachings” of the Catholic Church and is committed to participating “in the evangelizing mission of the church.” That admission sparked fierce legal and political battles over whether a religious institution can receive taxpayer dollars while maintaining its faith-based mission.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond led the charge against public funding for St. Isidore, calling the school’s approval “an unlawful sponsorship” of a sectarian institution and describing it as “a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans.” The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling that state dollars cannot be used to fund a school rooted in religious teachings.
Central to the case was whether charter schools should be treated as public schools—extensions of the state and thus bound by the Establishment Clause—or as private contractors, as argued by St. Isidore. If considered public, the school would be constitutionally barred from receiving state funds for religious instruction.
During oral arguments, justices explored whether Oklahoma’s actions placed an undue burden on the school’s religious mission, potentially violating the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. School choice advocates argued that denying funding amounted to religious discrimination, while critics countered that public dollars must not support religious evangelization.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan pressed attorneys for St. Isidore on how the school would handle students from different religious backgrounds. Questions about curriculum supervision and the extent of state oversight dominated the debate, exposing deep ideological divides among the justices.
The Supreme Court’s one-sentence decision—“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court”—offers little guidance for states considering similar proposals. With Justice Barrett recused, the even split means the Oklahoma ruling stands but sets no binding precedent for other courts.
This outcome frustrates both sides of the debate. Religious liberty advocates see the decision as a missed opportunity to expand school choice and allow faith-based institutions to compete for public funds. Opponents argue the deadlock preserves vital constitutional protections against government endorsement of religion.
In recent years, the Court’s conservative majority has allowed taxpayer support for religious organizations providing non-sectarian services. However, this case raised new questions about how much control states would have over curriculum and religious practices if faith-based charter schools were publicly funded.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond called the situation “a serious threat to the religious liberty of all four-million Oklahomans.” St. Isidore officials stated the school “fully embraces the teachings” of the Catholic Church and participates “in the evangelizing mission of the church.”
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined in the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision on Thursday, leaving St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School’s bid for public funding unresolved. The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling stands, barring the school from state dollars due to concerns over the Establishment Clause.
Supporters and critics alike now await possible new legal challenges or legislative action that could clarify the boundaries between religious freedom and state funding of education. Nationally, the outcome has reignited debate over the proper role of religion in publicly funded schools and the future of school choice in America.