Calls to “abolish ICE” have become a predictable feature of student walkouts across the United States. Within minutes of a viral post, classrooms empty, administrators coordinate responses, and protest footage spreads across social media platforms. The demonstrations are framed as civic participation, yet they reveal a more troubling reality: many students are mobilized to denounce federal enforcement agencies without first understanding how legislative authority, executive enforcement, and constitutional structure interact.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement does not draft statutes, set visa caps, or define asylum standards. Those responsibilities belong to Congress. Federal agencies enforce laws written and amended through the legislative process and signed by the president. Yet protest rhetoric frequently treats enforcement bodies as policymakers. Students chant against an agency without distinguishing between legislative design and executive implementation. At a minimum, students should understand which branch of government holds the power they seek to challenge.
The broader problem is that civic literacy across the country remains far weaker than a constitutional republic requires. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 22 percent of eighth graders score at or above proficient in civics, while nearly one-third fall below basic competency. Between 2018 and 2022, civics scores declined rather than improved. Students increasingly graduate without demonstrating mastery of the separation of powers, federalism, or the amendment process.
Adult knowledge offers little reassurance. Research from the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that just 47 percent of Americans can name all three branches of government. When almost half of adults cannot identify the constitutional framework, secondary school students are predictably left with the same confusion. Weak civic foundations replicate across generations.
Structural deficiencies within school systems compound the problem. Fewer than half of U.S. states require a standalone civics course for graduation. In many districts, constitutional instruction is folded into broader social studies curricula and compressed near the end of the academic year. Instructional time is frequently redirected toward tested subjects such as math and reading. A student can complete 12 years of schooling without demonstrating comprehension of how legislation is enacted, reviewed, and enforced.
Simultaneously, schools often elevate “student voice” initiatives. Administrators celebrate activism and frame demonstrations as experiential learning. Engagement detached from institutional knowledge, however, becomes performance rather than participation. Students are encouraged to demand action from entities that lack the authority to grant it. Political expression substitutes for constitutional literacy.
The reluctance to address controversial material intensifies the gap. Immigration, abortion, foreign policy, and executive authority frequently trigger administrative caution. Educators operate within polarized environments where community backlash is common. As a result, complex institutional debates are softened or avoided. Students memorize vocabulary—filibuster, veto, judicial review—without applying those concepts to live policy disputes.
When disagreement is treated as destabilizing, intellectual resilience weakens.
International comparisons illustrate the cost. Broad cross-national civic studies suggest that several Western European countries perform at or above the United States on measures of civic knowledge. Democracies that treat institutional literacy as foundational equip students to evaluate authority before engaging in activism. The United States, despite possessing one of the world’s most influential constitutional frameworks, increasingly trails peer nations in measurable democratic understanding.
Reform requires structural change rather than rhetorical encouragement. States should mandate comprehensive, standalone civics courses anchored in constitutional design. Graduation standards should include demonstrated knowledge of legislative procedure, executive authority, and judicial review. Classroom debate should be normalized and structured. Students should analyze opposing arguments and defend positions that are contrary to their initial preferences. Intellectual discipline develops through sustained engagement with constitutional limits.
Most importantly, school choice–based systems should be implemented in every state. Charter schools consistently outperform many traditional public schools in measures of academic growth and civic engagement. Research from Stanford University’s CREDO Institute has found that charter students in numerous urban areas demonstrate stronger gains in reading, which forms the foundation for constitutional literacy and informed political participation.
Multiple studies report that students in charter schools were significantly more likely to study the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the structure of government. Many classical charter networks embed the Federalist Papers, founding documents, and primary source analysis directly into their core curricula, strengthening students’ institutional understanding rather than reducing civics to contemporary activism.
Peaceful protest represents civic engagement in a democratic society. However, protesting the wrong branch of government reflects a failure of institutional understanding. Effective advocacy requires clarity regarding where authority resides. Grievance without constitutional literacy produces noise rather than reform.
The success of a nation depends on citizens who distinguish between lawmaking and law enforcement. When that distinction erodes, frustration increases, and institutional trust declines. The current cycle of student protests should prompt scrutiny of civic instruction itself. If students mobilize before acquiring institutional understanding, engagement becomes theater. If institutional understanding precedes mobilization, participation becomes effective.