Iowa GOP using 'fear' to 'unleash a frenzy of book-banning across the state': analysis

Republican legislators in Iowa passed intentionally vague laws that have spurred the removal of books from school libraries and classrooms.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signed into law in May a requirement for schools to remove books that depict a "sex act," a vaguely worded statutory term that that Washington Post columnist Greg Sargent says "has now helped unleash a frenzy of book-banning across the state."

"Their vagueness is the point," Sargent writes. "When GOP-controlled state legislatures escalated the passage of laws in 2022 and 2023 restricting school materials addressing sex, gender and race, critics warned that their hazy drafting would prod educators to err on the side of censorship. Uncertain whether books or classroom discussions might run afoul of their state’s law, education officials might decide nixing them would be the 'safer' option."

"What’s happening in Iowa right now thoroughly vindicates those fears," Sargent adds.

POLL: Should Trump be allowed to run for office?

The Iowa City Community School District issued a list of 68 books removed from the shelves to comply with the law, including The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison, school districts in other parts of the state have removed such books as “1984” by George Orwell and “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut.

“Many literary classics have sex in them,” said Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America. “But now the term ‘sex act’ is turning into a blunt instrument to remove scores of books that have all kinds of literary merit and cultural significance.”

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

President Donald Trump said Thursday he might skip his eldest son's upcoming wedding — because the optics are a lose-lose no matter what he does.

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump acknowledged that Donald Trump Jr. and socialite Bettina Anderson are set to wed this Memorial Day weekend in what is expected to be a destination ceremony on a private island in the Bahamas, attended by a small group of friends and family.

"He'd like me to go, but it's gonna be just a small little private affair, and I'm gonna try and make it," Trump said. "This is not good timing for me. I have a thing called Iran and other things."

Then came the kicker: "That's one I can't win on. If I do attend, I get killed. If I don't attend, I get killed — by the fake news, of course."

Trump announced the engagement at the White House in December. Trump Jr., 47, began dating Anderson, 39, in 2024 following his split from ex-fiancée Kimberly Guilfoyle.

This wouldn't be the first time the president has passed on a family milestone connected to the wedding. Neither Donald nor Melania attended Anderson's bridal shower — an Enchanted Garden-themed luncheon held at Mar-a-Lago.

Trump ended on a warmer note, calling Anderson "a person who I've known for a long time" and wishing the couple well.

"Hopefully, they're gonna have a great marriage," he said.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL) faced pushback during a contentious CNN interview over what critics have called President Donald Trump's massive slush fund.

The MAGA lawmaker and Florida gubernatorial candidate appeared Thursday morning on "The Situation Room," where co-host Pamela Brown pressed him on details about the $1.776 billion taxpayer-paid "Anti-Weaponization" fund to compensate individuals who claim they were unjustly targeted for federal prosecution.

"Let's be very clear," Donalds began. "Understand that there were many people that the Biden Justice Department overcharged with respect to what happened on Jan. 6. That is a fact, that's what happened, if you look at some of the trials that were conducted there in that time period. Number two, that fund, as I understand it, is open to anybody, Republican or Democrat, independent, no matter what your political viewpoints are. If you were subject to a weaponized prosecution by the federal government, then that fund is available in order to make the necessary payments, quite frankly, for pain and suffering and mental anguish with your government choosing to persecute you for political purposes, and that list is way, that list is way long."

"We can go back to Lois Lerner back in 2014, when that IRS under the Obama administration was targeting Tea Party groups," the GOP congressman added. "So I think this is a fund that, quite frankly, is long overdue. If you're an American who is prosecuted by this government for political purposes and gone after by this government for political purposes, there should be some ability to compensate you for that."

Donalds argued that convicted Jan. 6 rioters were deserving of compensation because the Biden Justice Department had "overcharged" them, but Brown followed up and asked him to clarify that he had not ruled out compensating individuals convicted of violently attacking law enforcement, and Donalds rejected her question.

"What you're trying to do is make an assertion where it doesn't even exist today, and that's what you're doing," he complained. "So don't come in with a leading question trying to make an assertion that doesn't exist because you're trying to make it a political question."

Donalds cited another instance where he believed a specific individuals deserved compensation, but again listed only Trump allies.

"We can talk about we can talk about what happened with Michael Flynn, the fact that he was persecuted by this government under the under the phony Russia collusion scandal, which we all know now is fake and phony," Donalds said, referring to Trump's first national security adviser who pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents. "What about him? What about the money he had to put out for his attorneys? What about the anguish on his family?"

Brown reclaimed control of the interview and shut down Donalds' complaint.

"I wanted to give you a chance to give your perspective here, but just to be clear, this isn't anything I'm doing," Brown said. "I am a vehicle for what people in your own party, the concerns that they're expressing. You have several Republicans on the Senate side, and also you have on the House side who concerns coming from them about who could receive this money, including the Jan. 6 rioters. In fact, and, in fact, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is meeting with some of them because of those concerns."

"You are a fiscal conservative and you're running as such for governor of Florida," she added. "Is it a fiscally responsible decision for the Trump administration to launch this $1.8 billion fund when Americans and Floridians, in particular, are struggling with high gas prices?"

Donalds complained about that question, too.

"You're conflating issues, he protested.

"No, I'm not," Brown firmly replied.

"Yes, you are," Donalds argued.

"I'm not conflating issues, I'm a vehicle for concerns that come from everyday Americans," Brown responded.


- YouTube youtu.be

Joy Behar unloaded on the Trump administration's $1.776 billion "anti-weaponization fund" on Thursday, comparing potential payouts to Jan. 6 rioters to compensating the Manson family for their crimes.

"This guy, the former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio — who directed the Proud Boys to assault the government — he received a 22-year sentence for seditious conspiracy, and he expects to get between $2 million and $5 million in compensation," Behar said on The View. "What about the Manson family? Why don't we give them money?"

The DOJ announced the fund on Monday as part of a settlement after Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the fund would provide "a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress."

Behar, a co-host on the ABC daytime talk show, wasn't buying it — and drew a sharp contrast to a 2020 controversy.

"I remember Republicans were big mad that Kamala Harris tweeted out that people should give money to the Minnesota Freedom Fund," she said. "This is that on steroids."

As for whether Republicans would push back, Behar was dismissive. "They're — why would they? They're right in his orbit. They only want to please dear leader."

Co-host Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor, argued that the fund's legal foundation is shaky at best. She noted that a federal judge in Florida had ordered briefings for May 27, suggesting she was preparing to throw out the underlying IRS case — before the DOJ rushed to settle.

"They settled the case before it even got adjudicated in court, and the settlement included this fund," Hostin said. "So this is corruption, people, at the highest level."

Whoopi Goldberg set the table by reminding viewers of the human cost of Jan. 6 — seven deaths, roughly 140 injured officers, and an estimated $2.7 billion in taxpayer funds spent on damages, security, and investigations.

"They are asking us to pay back the very people who cost us that money to begin with," Goldberg said.

Behar predicted the fund will ultimately be blocked — either by Congress or the courts — pointing to vulnerable Republicans like Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) who represent districts won by Democrats as potential allies in killing it.

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}