Harry S. Truman examines the company’s poster, calling people to register for voting.
(Wikimedia Commons)
“Should the administration not intervene when Jewish students are dangerous in the campus?” Then there were the following actions: “What if these were black students, can the administration intervene then?”
These were questions that asked me during the interview for Harry S. Truman’s scholarship, the National College Junior Prize who sought careers at the public service. Congress created in 1975, a tax -funded scholarship was name To honor President Truman’s belief that democracy requires fundamental, well -trained leaders. Each year, about one student in the state is selected to finance graduate school and support in government or non -profit sector. Candidates must be nominated in their schools, submit a number of essays and, if selected as a finalist, sit for a 20-minute interview in their home state-fast session designed to check their ability to think on their feet.
But instead of plunging into politics, my interview has sharply excited to politics. I was asked about the orientation of the Trump administration at the Institutes – including my campus of the Colombian University College. Later I learned that not one. Other finalists, especially from elite schools who have visible student protests, similarly questioned their views on Israel and Palestine, the topic far from what they wrote in their statements.
Of course, the scholarship should ask complex questions. But when candidates are nominated from the campus or moral beliefs, the interview risks turning political litmus trials, rather than assessing character and vision – from expanding access to health care to voting rights – which determine their desire for public service. I do not believe that I was refused to choose for my views, but when the service is obscured by ideological control, the process itself becomes armed for the guerrilla program.
In May 2024, Virginia Fox Representative, Chairman of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Labor, joined the other leaders of the Republican congresses of the Truman Fund of Political Prejudice. In A Letter to the fundLegislators demanded an explanation for what they called the disproportionate ratio “10: 1” between the progressive and conservative scientists of the Truman. The message was understood: bring the program according to their definition of justice – or risk its future.
The “non -party state service” has long been considered an ideal for our government workers to rise over politics to serve the common good. But if the facts themselves are politicized, will the guerrillas defend the rights of voting, because one party seeks to cancel the presidential election – or advocate for environmental rules if the very existence of climate change refuses?
Current Issue
However, the civil service has never been apolitical. Each policy decision reflects a set of values. These are values at the root of our social contract; We provide power to the government, and in return it serves us. But if one party refuses the basic principles of our democracy – the pursuit of truth, freedom of speech, the rule of law – the gap is no longer left compared to the right. Do you believe in the ideals that support our democracy.
The production of criticism from the republican legislators has transformed a non -partisan scholarship into a political field of battle. This spring, the Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson appointed representative Eliza Stefanik – the viral hearings last year led to the resignation of three ivy presidents – the Trustees Council of the Truman Foundation. The board is folded Of the 13 members, including eight appointed presidents and four Congress members on both sides.
For the first time in recent memory, when scientists Truman 2025 were announced in April, their biography was absent on the Foundation’s website – it is supposed to be a political reaction. But shortly thereafter, Stefanic’s representative publicly demanded Review of “alarming and well -documented” left bias in the fund, citing dozens of past winners, “clearly committed to left reasons, including climate change, LGBTQ+ problems and immigrant rights. In a letter to the Truman Board of Truste, she also called for the abolition of the student’s “Pro-Hamas” scientist, based solely on their leadership in the campus organization, which stands for Palestinian human rights.
Like universities and private law firms aimed at reducing financing and executive orders, the Truman Foundation faces a wave of existential threats both outside and inside, as figures as Stefanic acquire an impact on its advice. They claim that they correct the liberal prejudice, but the real goal is to revise the government itself, to create a state where work in the government requires complete loyalty to the ruling party – or immediate removal.
Throughout the federal government, President Trump is already reviewing “merit” as loyalty to his administration and his politics. Federal applicants for work should now note About their favorite executive order. Candidates for the Fulbright program have rejected Mention of the word “climate change” and last month, the entire 12-member council fellReferring to the White House intervention.
This is not just a fight for the fact that students get prestigious opportunities. This is the battle for which our government serves – and how we determine the service itself. When federal scholarships become political prizes, we return to the 19th century mining system. The government where the loyalty is rewarded and the experience is ejected. This is the path to authoritarianism and betrayal of values at the heart of these programs funded by taxpayers and our democracy.
Unlike private institutions, such as Harvard and law firms that pushed back, the Truman Foundation works under the supervision of Congress. But knowledge of this book only raises rates – and makes institutional courage more relevant. For young people who hope to pursue a career in the field of public service, the question is clear: will we serve all Americans, or the loyalty of the ruling party will become the entry price? When loyalty becomes a public service, we betray the main American value: that our government should work for people, not for any person or party. If we do not resist now, we will not just lose the whole generation of civil servants, but the most ideals they called to serve.
More than Nation
An independent populist from Nebraska, who approached the victory in 2024, works to disable one of the most wealthy and self -replaced members of the Senate in 2026.
The key players in corruption and the destruction of the Supreme Court are reflected as vermin.
Paramount settlement with Trump is a symptom of deep structural rot in our corporate media system.
