“What matters to me, as a former teacher and current litigator, is that students see themselves in what they learn and feel empowered to make change,” says Leah Watson, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Racial Justice Program. “It’s unacceptable to force students to accept the government’s talking points even when those views are not only inaccurate, but racist and sexist.”

As a member of the ACLU’s Racial Justice Project since 2020, Watson’s work focuses on preventing the government from enforcing its discriminatory agenda. She has, understandably, been even busier since President Donald Trump was reelected and began to gut federally-supported diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and to coerce other entities – like universities or workplaces – into abandoning DEI entirely.

Watson was ready for it. She’s been here before.

Credit: Leah Watson

Watson is a member of the legal team that challenged Florida’s Stop W.O.K.E Act — one of the broadest state laws to come out of the “war on woke” — that focused on restricting any instruction perceived as affirming the role that race plays in American society. The ACLU’s lawsuit successfully blocked enforcement of the higher education restrictions of the STOP W.O.K.E Act, a decision that has been appealed.

While blocking the Stop W.O.K.E Act is a win, Trump and conservative politicians have continued to pass unconstitutional laws and executive orders to censor student and faculty speech about race, racism, sex, and sexism. These bills not only violate educators’ First and 14th Amendments – they’re a violation of students’ First Amendment right to receive information, an injustice that Watson, a former Political Science and World History educator, is inspired to stop.

“Censorship has an outsized impact on young people who are in school for such a limited period and may never receive instruction necessary to equip them to live in a diverse society. They need to develop critical thinking, analysis, and problem solving skills to succeed,” Watson says. “The classroom should be that space; it should not be limited to regurgitation of the government’s talking points.”

When any student is denied the right to learn – one that includes instruction on racism and sexism, as well as narratives from BIPOC and LGBTQ authors, experts and characters – they are denied the right to see themselves reflected in what they’re taught, to form their own opinions, to express themselves and to truly connect to the concepts they’re learning. Watson notes that the current and proposed censorship laws would have prevented her from educating her students on their own history.

Credit: Leah Watson

“How could I explain the need for the 13th, 14th, or 19th Amendments without any discussion of racism or sexism?” she wonders. “What about the 3/5ths compromise or the existence of oppression in other cultures? Even current events, like racially-motivated mass shootings, require context that would be prohibited.”

In addition to ensuring her students had the tools needed to think critically in a diverse society, as an educator, Watson also personalised her teaching strategies to the strengths and weaknesses of students in a process known as differentiation, which is simply meeting students where they are. Some students need to learn vocabulary to access the textbook while others have mastered the vocabulary and are ready to build analytical skills, including prediction.

Even as she saw success with her students, Watson understood that the achievement gap isn’t limited to classrooms. “So many of the issues that stop students from learning – malnutrition, poverty, homelessness, violence – are things that happen before they even get to school,” Watson explains. “I wanted to have a tangible impact on young people [because I recognized that] performance on quizzes depends on more than classroom instruction. Students’ immediate needs must be met for their brains to have capacity to learn.”

Credit: Leah Watson

Seeing the obstacles to closing the achievement gap inspired Watson to explore other avenues to support Black and brown families, especially students. While attending Harvard Law School, she worked with young people facing adversity, including children experiencing trauma and survivors of domestic violence. As a civil rights litigator, some of her earliest work challenged the criminalization of poverty, and developed strategies to reduce violent police encounters with students. She also focused on how race can be used to increase equity not just in school, but in the workforce, in health care, law enforcement, in trainings and more. Of course, the idea that race can – and should – be considered runs counter to the Trump administration’s discriminatory narrative that uses equity-based concepts and practices, like DEI and CRT, as racialized dog whistles.

“The so-called attack on DEI is much broader than actual DEI, which is a strategy to increase the recruitment, promotion, and retention of historically marginalized groups,” Watson says. “It is an attempt to re-whitewash history and avoid the historic, systemic, and present denial of opportunity and access due to white supremacy and patriarchy.”

Right now, anti-DEI efforts are the new frontier in the racial justice movement and Watson is at the forefront of the fight. For years, she has been following the anti-equity agenda to identify the key actors and the playbook they’re using to deny the existence of racism and sexism across industries or institutions in society. Today, she’s focused on using that information to mount an offense against attacks on DEI, like the Trump administration’s recent executive orders bullying private and governmental entities into abandoning legal DEI efforts to promote equity and remedy systemic discrimination.

For Watson, not only are the Trump administration’s efforts unlawful and harmful, they single out marginalized groups for erasure. So often, Watson explains, she speaks with clients who tell her she was one of the first people to listen to their experience and explain how their constitutional rights have been infringed. This reaffirms for Watson that, even when powerful politicians denigrate her work and her community, the fight for racial justice and equity is – and has always been – about people.

“To me, winning is not about winning a case,” Watson says. “It’s about winning someone’s understanding and faith. It’s about fighting for people whose existence is being ignored or erased.”

Our series, Behind the Fight for Our Rights, asks individuals defending our freedoms how they’re thinking about the next four years. Below, Watson shares insight into her life – both professional and personal – under the Trump administration.

ACLU: What are you most looking forward to in the next four years?

WATSON: I’m most looking forward to affirmatively pursuing and holding the line on consideration of race in various settings. I’m looking forward to resisting efforts to minimize or ignore the impact of racism across industries or institutions in society.

ACLU: What is the biggest challenge you’re expecting in the next four years?

WATSON: Professionally, my biggest challenge will be to counter the erasure of the continuing effects of discrimination in our society. Discrimination doesn’t cease to exist because President Trump won’t acknowledge it. We must use our legal tools to establish the need for continued consideration of race and other protected categories where necessary to ensure opportunity and access for all.

ACLU: What do you wish people knew more about the fight for racial justice?

WATSON: People believe that racial justice work only benefits BIPOC people, but it’s for everyone. We all benefit from a diverse society where everyone has opportunity.

ACLU: What is one thing you wish you knew about the fight for racial justice?

WATSON: I wish I knew more ways of affirmatively reclaiming the terms race and racism. We’re seeing both those words being demonised and made toxic in ways that aren’t true.

President Donald Trump has nominated Harmeet Dhillon, an attorney, media personality, and Republican Party official, to lead the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ). If confirmed, Dhillon will lead the division of the DOJ charged with upholding core civil rights and liberties in many aspects of American life.

Dhillon is known for her work supporting President Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election as well as for her persistent attacks against transgender people, their rights, and their health care. She is founder of the Dhillon Law Group and the Center for American Liberty, a right-wing impact litigation organization.

While the ACLU does not endorse or oppose executive branch nominees as a matter of organizational policy, we have spent more than 100 years holding power accountable. In line with that history, we are examining and publicizing nominees’ records on civil rights and civil liberties and urging senators to seek and obtain commitments from nominees on key concerns. We note that nominee Dhillon served on the board of the ACLU of Northern California from 2002 – 2005 and while we appreciate her support of civil rights and liberties during that time, we have strong concerns about the evolution of her positions and her recent record.

The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division was created for the very purpose of safeguarding the civil and constitutional rights of the most vulnerable among us, and it is charged with enforcing a wide range of federal civil rights laws. Consequently, ahead of Dhillon’s confirmation hearing, we’re analyzing her record on key issues, highlighting areas for senators to question the nominee and secure commitments to uphold our rights.

Often called the “crown jewel” of the DOJ, the Civil Rights Division plays a crucial role in defending all civil rights and liberties, especially for marginalized communities. It is responsible for enforcing federal voting and election laws that protect access to the ballot, including the Voting Rights Act, Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, National Voter Registration Act, and Help America Vote Act. These critical federal laws safeguard against voting discrimination based on race, language, and disability; provide for and facilitate voter registration opportunities without unreasonable burdens; set standards for election administration; ensure accessibility for military and overseas voters; and help ensure every eligible American can cast their vote and have their vote counted equally.

Through direct and coordinated actions, the Civil Rights Division enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, and gender identity), disability, religion, familial status, national origin, and citizenship status across many areas of life: employment, housing, education, and public accommodations. It works across federal agencies to achieve a strong, consistent approach to civil rights enforcement and ensure that recipients of federal funding abide by nondiscrimination requirements. It is charged with enforcing federal hate crime laws protecting against violence and threats on account of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.

The Civil Rights Division is also tasked with investigating and taking action against police misconduct and discriminatory practices, as well as with protecting access to reproductive services. The Civil Rights Division enforces the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits interfering with access to abortion services, pharmacy-provided reproductive health services, pregnancy counseling services and other reproductive health care using violence, threats, obstruction, or property damage.

The scope and gravity of these responsibilities cannot be overstated and require a deeply-rooted commitment to protecting the civil rights of every individual, especially those in marginalized communities. Dhillon’s confirmation hearing comes as the current administration is abusing its power to unrelentingly attack and erode the civil rights and liberties of vulnerable communities across the country. This includes executive actions to undo decades of non-discrimination protections, restrict access to a diverse and inclusive education, and erase transgender people’s existence under the law, among many others.

Dhillon has a long record of working to restrict voting rights, transgender rights, and abortion access.

1. Voting and Elections: Dhillon criticized Executive Order 14019 on Promoting Access to Voting that, until President Trump rescinded it, directed agencies to offer nonpartisan voter registration opportunities for eligible Americans. She said it was an effort to “interfere with and override state election efforts.” She also advocated for restrictive policies before Congress, appearing in 2023 and 2021 before the U.S. House Committee on Administration and Subcommittee on Elections, respectively, to condemn private funding for local election administration, criticize provisions of the For the People Act that would require less burdensome voter ID rules, and denounce legal efforts to ensure that voter roll maintenance activities comply with federal law and do not result in eligible voters being improperly removed from voter rolls. Furthermore, Dhillon has played a prominent role in spreading false claims about voting that sow distrust in free and fair elections. She was a key figure in Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election, spreading baseless allegations of voter fraud in the media and through litigation.
2. Protecting Marginalized Communities: Dhillon’s rhetoric and actions have, historically, targeted some of the very people and groups federal nondiscrimination law rightfully seeks to protect. She has criticized efforts to address racial inequalities, calling diversity efforts “racial divisiveness” and “racial balkanization” and referred to undocumented people as “the worst criminals” and “degenerates.” Dhillon has repeatedly targeted the rights of transgender children, using her nonprofit to bring lawsuits to end policies that protect transgender youth in schools, restrict access to necessary, even life-saving, gender-affirming medical care, and end nondiscrimination protections in foster care. Dhillon has also called for transgender women to be excluded from protection under Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in schools and educational programs. She called state shield laws that protect transgender people and gender-affirming care providers unconstitutional, “crazy,” and “super extreme.” Dhillon went so far as to urge that it be “[made] unsafe” for providers of gender-affirming care.
3. Reproductive Freedom: Dhillon has demonstrated her opposition to reproductive freedom. During her campaign for chairwoman of the Republican National Convention in 2022, she told the Washington Examiner “I’m one of the top lawyers for the pro-life movement in the country.”

Based on Dhillon’s track record, the ACLU is deeply concerned that she will attempt to use the Civil Rights Division to harm the very people it was created to protect. At her confirmation hearing, we are urging senators to ask Dhillon:

1. Will you commit to using the authority and resources of the Civil Rights Division to protect and expand voting access; remove barriers faced by voters of color, voters with disabilities, and other marginalized voters; and robustly enforce all federal voting rights laws, including the Voting Rights Act of 1965?
2. The claim that there is widespread voter fraud in our elections has been proven wrong time and time again and only serves to sow distrust in our elections. Do you disavow the claims you’ve made about fraud in our elections, and will you commit to completely refrain from further spreading such false claims?
3. Do you believe the ongoing effort by the state of Texas to remove transgender youth from their parents’ custody because those parents supported their children in receiving medical care recommended by the American Medical Association is a violation of their parental rights? Would you oppose an effort by this administration to punish parents or seek to strip them of custody based on providing medical care to their children?
4. Do you agree that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County is a binding interpretation of what Title VII’s sex discrimination protections mean? Will you commit to fully enforcing those protections for LGBTQ people who face discrimination in the workplace?
5. Do you believe that education entities, public accommodations, housing providers, and employers continue to discriminate against persons based on race, color, and national origin? If not, how do you explain ongoing disparities? If so, do you commit that the Civil Rights Division will investigate such discrimination complaints?
6. Do you commit to ensure that the Civil Rights Division vigorously enforces all federal civil rights and nondiscrimination protections for all protected groups, including on the basis of citizenship status, nationality, and gender identity?
7. Will you commit to prosecuting cases involving excessive use of force by police and racial profiling, regardless of political pressure or local opposition, and protect the rights of every person under the Fourth and First Amendment of the Constitution?

Congress is setting the stage to decimate Medicaid.

The House of Representatives put forward a budget resolution that will lead to more than $880 billion in cuts from Medicaid. If approved, these cuts will eviscerate a critical source of health care and stability for 10s of millions of people. Most devastatingly, radical cuts to Medicaid will be catastrophic for people with disabilities for whom Medicaid is a lifeline.

Medicaid is an essential program that provides a wide range of critical health care services and support to millions of people across the country. The impacts of these draconian cuts would be staggering.

More than 10 million people with disabilities are enrolled in Medicaid, making it the largest provider of health care to people with disabilities, including people with mental health conditions. Beyond health care, Medicaid is the primary payer of home and community-based services (HCBS) for nearly 8 million seniors and people with disabilities, including those with complex care needs who depend on these services and supports to get out of bed, go to work, and live in their communities rather than being warehoused in costly and isolated institutions. Any cuts to HCBS will also harm family members who have to reduce hours at work or leave their jobs altogether to care for loved ones.

America’s seniors also rely on Medicaid for nursing home care; two-thirds of people living in nursing facilities are enrolled in Medicaid. Cuts to Medicaid will jeopardize access to nursing facilities and reduce the quality-of-care individuals receive. Many older adults with long-term care needs will be left with limited care options and, in some cases, no options at all if states are unable to fill the funding gap and must close nursing facilities.

Medicaid is the single largest funder of mental health and substance-use disorder care in the country. It provides care to nearly 14 million adults who have a mental health condition or substance use disorder. Medicaid expansion resulted in a significant increase in coverage and care for opioid use disorder (OUD.) Adults with OUD are twice as likely to receive OUD treatment if they have Medicaid than if they are uninsured or on private insurance.

School-age children would also be affected by Medicaid cuts. Medicaid supports more than $7.5 billion in school-based services, including certain services provided to children under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Funding helps pay for speech-language pathologists, audiologists, occupational therapists, school psychologists, school social workers, school nurses, and others who provide comprehensive health services. Medicaid also helps pay for specialized equipment that allows students with disabilities to learn and play alongside their peers. Seven out of 10 school-aged children who receive mental health services access these services at school, supported in large part by Medicaid.

Medicaid is the difference between life and death for millions. It enables people, especially those with disabilities, to participate in the economic, social, and civic life of the nation. It advances equal opportunity, dignity, and personal liberty for all.

Eviscerating Medicaid would not just impact those who rely on it for their quality of life, but it would also devastate the approximately 5 million direct care workers — home health aides, nursing assistants, personal care aides — who provide care and support to seniors and people with disabilities. These workers, predominantly low-wage women of color, help with all aspects of daily life, such as bathing, dressing, eating, managing medications, and attending appointments. Medicaid cuts will destabilize the direct-care workforce and jeopardize access to care.

As the House rams through its radical and thoughtless budget resolution that will gut Medicaid, the ACLU wants you to tell your Congress members how these devastating cuts will impact your community and those you know and love. Call your representatives today — and every single day — to tell them to protect Medicaid at all costs.