When Government Treats Parents as Enemies: The Evidence and the Constitutional Reckoning
The Department of Justice's newly released report provides a documentary account of federal investigations involving parents who challenged public school policies. Its findings invite a deeper examination of governmental authority, constitutional liberty, and the fundamental rights of parents.
A government that fears the voices of parents has forgotten whom it serves. During my years serving as a federal prosecutor and later as a federal judge, I learned the indispensable importance of carefully examining evidence before reaching conclusions. Not all evidence is of equal character or weight. Contemporaneous documents, official government records, firsthand testimony, and retrospective accounts each serve different purposes and must be evaluated accordingly. The reliability of a factual account depends not simply upon the seriousness of the allegations presented, but upon the authenticity, credibility, and sufficiency of the evidence supporting them. That experience has shaped my approach to examining governmental conduct, including the importance of distinguishing what the documentary record actually establishes from what others may infer from it.
On October 5, 2026, the United States Department of Justice released a 273-page report examining the use of federal law enforcement during the 2021–2025 administration against parents who challenged public school policies. The report presents a substantial documentary record, including official government memoranda, internal communications, investigative records, and statements from individuals with firsthand knowledge of the events. An important feature of the report is its reliance upon primary-source materials generated during the period under examination. These materials provide a contemporaneous record of governmental decisions, communications, and actions.
The Documentary Record
Among the report's foundational documents is the September 29, 2021, letter from the National School Boards Association (NSBA) requesting federal assistance in responding to threats and harassment directed toward school officials. The letter referenced domestic terrorism and requested consideration of several federal enforcement authorities.
The report also examines Attorney General Merrick Garland's October 4, 2021, memorandum directing federal law enforcement authorities to address alleged threats against school administrators, board members, teachers, and staff. Both documents are official records whose dates, authorship, and contents can be independently examined.
Together, these documents establish a chronological record of the request for federal intervention and the subsequent Department of Justice directive.
Contemporaneous Internal Communications
The report also draws upon communications among Department of Justice officials and federal law enforcement personnel. These records document internal discussions concerning the proposed federal response, including questions about jurisdiction, investigative authority, and the appropriate scope of federal involvement. Of particular importance are communications reflecting concerns expressed by career government attorneys. Such records provide direct evidence of the legal and institutional questions being considered within the Department at the time. The report further includes communications concerning interactions between the White House and Justice Department officials. These materials contribute to the documented chronology of discussions preceding and following the October 2021 memorandum. Unlike retrospective descriptions of events, contemporaneous correspondence preserves what officials communicated during the decision-making process itself.
Federal Investigative Records
Another substantial component of the report concerns records maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. According to the report, the FBI opened 25 Guardian threat assessments associated with the initiative. Six were handled by the Counterterrorism Division, seventeen by the Criminal Investigations Division, and two by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. One assessment was expanded into a full investigation. The report further records that none of these matters resulted in federal prosecution. These figures are drawn from institutional investigative records rather than estimates or secondary commentary. They provide specific, identifiable information concerning the number, classification, and disposition of the assessments.
An Identifiable Evidentiary Foundation
The report's principal source categories are readily distinguishable: official correspondence, executive-branch directives, internal government communications, FBI investigative records, and firsthand accounts.
Each serves a different documentary purpose. Official memoranda establish formal governmental directives. Internal communications preserve institutional deliberations. Investigative records document law enforcement activity. Firsthand accounts provide additional information concerning particular events and experiences.
The availability of identifiable documents, dates, officials, and investigative records permits readers and researchers to examine the factual materials underlying the report rather than relying exclusively upon its narrative presentation. For those studying the exercise of federal authority, the report thus provides an organized collection of contemporaneous government records and other identifiable evidence concerning a consequential period in the relationship between federal law enforcement and parents participating in public education controversies.
From Evidence to Constitutional Principle
The significance of this documentary record does not end, though, with establishing what government officials said and did. Evidence supplies the foundation for a more consequential inquiry of whether the exercise of governmental authority remained faithful to the constitutional principles that define and limit its legitimate use. The distinction matters. One establishes facts must before rendering legal judgments. And once established, those facts one must examined them against the enduring standards of constitutional liberty. In this instance, the documented federal response to parental dissent raises two fundamental constitutional questions: first, the right of citizens to challenge their government without fear of retaliation; and second, the inherent, preexisting right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children. These questions transcend administrative judgment and political preference, implicating the foundational principles upon which our constitutional Republic rests.
The Constitutional Order Turned Upside Down
The First Amendment does not protect only agreeable speech. It protects the citizen who challenges government orthodoxy, questions public officials, and petitions for redress of grievances.
Certainly, credible threats of violence warrant legitimate law enforcement responses. But vigorous disagreement, even when passionately expressed, is not domestic terrorism. A government that confuses dissent with dangerousness transforms constitutional liberty into a privilege exercised at the government's pleasure.
The problem runs deeper than freedom of expression. Our constitutional tradition recognizes that parents possess a fundamental liberty to direct the upbringing and education of their children. In a long line of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the Court repeatedly rejected the proposition that children belong to the State while reaffirming the fundamental character of parental authority. Government does not create the family, and parental authority is an inherent, preexisting right and responsibility that government must respect, not a privilege it has the power to grant or withdraw.
A Christian Understanding of Authority
Scripture places responsibility for raising children principally upon parents. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 instructs parents to teach God's commandments diligently to their children. Ephesians 6:4 charges fathers to bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. This responsibility carries corresponding authority. Within a properly ordered society, the family, church, and civil government possess distinct responsibilities. Government exceeds its legitimate sphere when it presumes to displace parental judgment merely because parents reject prevailing ideological preferences. Legitimate government exists to secure preexisting, unalienable rights, deriving its just powers from the consent of the governed. When government employs its investigative machinery to intimidate those exercising these rights, it reverses the relationship between citizen and State.
Accountability and the Preservation of Liberty
The report's findings warrant serious congressional oversight, meaningful accountability, and enforceable safeguards against future abuses. Its conclusions should also welcome rigorous examination against the underlying documentary record. Institutional legitimacy and good governance are strengthened when constitutional accountability rests upon evidence, the Rule of Law, and the impartial administration of justice rather than partisan allegiance. Indeed, the constitutional standard must remain unchanged regardless of which political party controls federal power. The greater danger is not simply that one administration exceeded constitutional limits. It is that Americans might gradually accept governmental intimidation as the price of dissent. Our Republic cannot remain free under such conditions.
Parents are not subjects of the State. They are entrusted with responsibilities that government must respect. The question before us is whether we will preserve a constitutional order in which government serves the family—or tolerate one in which families must seek permission to challenge the government.
