By Kelly John Walker 
Real America’s Voice texted me an article that, at first glance, appears positive.
But something isn’t adding up.
I’m not one to look a gift horse in the mouth—and I hold Harmeet Dhillon in high regard—but this feels less like the justice the voters demand and more like a bone tossed to parents who expected a full course correction.
The U.S. Department of Justice has suddenly discovered an urgent interest in parental rights—well, at least in three school districts in Michigan. Federal investigators are now examining whether parents were properly notified about certain classroom content and whether they were allowed to opt their children out.
Parents across this country haven’t spent years documenting coercion, retaliation, secrecy, and ideological capture in public education to get notification forms and compliance checkboxes. And, regarding the sudden DOJ interest, the obvious question is this: Why now—and why there?
Since Merrick Garland’s infamous October 4, 2021 memo assigning federal resources to target supposed “terrorist” parents, families, whistleblowers, and the Parents Demanding Justice Alliance have submitted detailed documentation outlining patterns of abuse: parents arrested at school board meetings, records hidden, parents surveilled, children socially transitioned without parental knowledge, and educators instructed to treat mothers and fathers as “threats” rather than partners in their children’s upbringing. It’s all right here: https://aflegal.org/press-release/major-victory-america-first-legal-uncovers-documents-conclusively-proving-the-infamous-garland-memo-was-politically-orchestrated-and-coordinated-with-the-biden-white-house
And yet, I sat in a high DOJ official’s office on January 23rd of this year and was told not to expect justice or rectification from DOJ on a “state issue.” Really??!!
Um…besides overwhelming documentation, no less than two EOs and a Judiciary Committee report firmly acknowledge the targeting of parents as federal weaponization.
Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government
Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling
Pardonne-moi? A state issue? I think not. Permission to “opt out” of radical indoctrination—that’s NOT what the EO mandates. To wit:
“The American people have witnessed the previous administration engage in a systematic campaign against its perceived political opponents, weaponizing the legal force of numerous Federal law enforcement agencies and the Intelligence Community against those perceived political opponents in the form of investigations, prosecutions, civil enforcement actions, and other related actions. These actions appear oriented more toward inflicting political pain than toward pursuing actual justice or legitimate governmental objectives. Many of these activities appear to be inconsistent with the Constitution and/or the laws of the United States, including those activities directed at parents protesting at school board meetings, Americans who spoke out against the previous administration’s actions, and other Americans who were simply exercising constitutionally protected rights.”
Despite DOJ’s attempt at jurisdictional sleight of hand, in Michigan, DOJ is asserting federal authority over local and state curriculum decisions—launching investigations into districts traditionally governed by school boards and state law.
So which is it? Is this a federal civil-rights issue—or not?
You cannot simultaneously claim Washington lacks jurisdiction when parents allege targeting, while asserting sweeping authority when reviewing lesson plans. The Constitution does not permit jurisdiction to expand and contract based on political convenience.
Even more troubling is the narrow theory behind the investigation: The DOJ is not asking whether compelled ideological instruction violates parental authority. Instead, it is asking whether parents were allowed to opt out.
Think about that for a moment.
It appears the federal government’s answer to parental-rights violations is not to stop the practice—it is to ensure families can file an exemption form.
That’s not what the American people voted for. It sure as hell isn’t going to restore the damage done to parents when DOJ egregiously and deliberately deprived them of constitutional protections—not to mention their jobs, homes and reputations. That is administrative permission to avoid something that should never have been imposed in the first place.
An opt-out regime flips the burden of liberty, forcing parents into a defensive posture, requiring constant vigilance to shield their children from material they never consented to. That’s the opposite of what this government was instituted to do: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” as Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence.
We cannot require citizens to opt out of compelled speech, indoctrination, or teaching that’s antithetical to the biblical foundations of our Republic any more than we can require churches to opt out of government doctrine.
If Washington truly has the authority to police some matters under civil-rights law or federal funding conditions, then that authority must be applied consistently—not selectively—and acknowledge that the federal government did indeed harm dissenting parents across the nation. And they must restore those damages.
If the DOJ selectively applies its authority then its administration raises serious constitutional concerns and invites public questioning of how they derive their standards. There is reason to believe this Michigan probe may function as a pilot case—a carefully chosen investigation designed to test a legal framework without addressing the larger national conflict. If so, it risks becoming a substitute for real reform.
If the Department of Justice wishes to champion parental rights, it must answer three simple questions:
1. What standard determines when federal authorities intervene—and when they refuse?
2. Are parents entitled to protection from coercive policies, or merely the ability to navigate around them?
3. Will DOJ address systemic concerns nationwide, or only pursue isolated compliance reviews?
Until those questions are answered, this investigation risks looking less like justice—and more like bureaucracy attempting to manage the optics rather than fulfill the agenda the voters, and the president clearly mandated. Swatting down a few manifestations of the symptoms do nothing to eliminate the cause of this disease in our society.
America’s parents are not asking for better permission slips. They are asking for their authority, dignity, and trust to be restored—they want their lives back, and the DOJ owes them that…along with a long-overdue apology. And, they want this radical indoctrination to stop once and for all; frankly, the only place sex education belongs is in the home and at church, not in government-run institutions.
No republic can endure when it reduces cries for justice to administrative formalities and treats redressing constitutional grievances as optional rather than the very purpose of government itself.
Kelly John Walker is an American statesman, senior writer, author, and entrepreneur. He is the Founder of FreedomTalk, Editor-in-Chief of FreedomTalk Magazine, and Co-Founder of Parents Demanding Justice Alliance. His work has appeared in The Washington Times, Gateway Pundit, The Epoch Times, Newsmax, and more. He’s a frequent guest on national news and commentary programs. Kelly holds degrees in English, Theology, and a Master of Science earned on a U.S. Department of Defense fellowship. In 2020, after being canceled and arrested for standing against government overreach, he became a leading independent journalist and advocate for liberty and parental rights.
