Trump set to sign Executive Order which will eliminate the Department of Education
Sheria Smith, former Civil Rights Attorney with the Department of Education, Chasten Buttigeg, Author of the book 'I Have Something To Tell You' and Angelo Carusone, President of Media Matters join Alicia Menendez in for Nicolle Wallace on Deadline White House to discuss Trump's expected Executive Order to eliminate the Department of Education and how the goal of this move is completely in line with Project 2025's agenda.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ampere Analysis Breaks Down The Threat U.S. Tariffs Would Pose To European Film & TV
Speaking at NEM in Croatia, Ampere Analysis Co-Founder Guy Bisson ran the rule over the so-called plan to save Hollywood from Jon Voight and associates, and assessed the potential impact on the European film and TV biz. 'A 120% tariff on incentives to cancel out global schemes is patently ridiculous and obviously very damaging, potentially, to the European industry,' he said. 'Tax treaties, local tax treaties in the U.S., and incentive schemes, just like we use in Europe, clearly, are the way to go if you want to re-enliven your industries.' More from Deadline Donald Trump's Tariffs Deemed Unlawful & Blocked By Trade Court; White House Appeals Instantly Life After Peak TV: "It's A New World Order... There's A Rethink Required" - Berlin Streamer Content Spend To Top Commercial Broadcasters For First Time In 2025 - Report A draft of Voight's Make Hollywood Great Again plan, obtained by Deadline, included a mixture of production incentives and a 120% tariff on the value of a foreign incentive received. After he presented the plan to Donald Trump, the President public proposed a 100% tariff on all U.S. film imports, including productions that shoot in other countries. The NEM confab and sales market is held annually in Dubrovnik. The latest edition kicked off, Monday, with Bisson's session, which was entitled: 'Content Trends in the Era of Trump: Protectionism, Production and International Markets'. The Ampere executive set the scene by showing how the European content business has benefitted from the U.S. studios widening their production bases and streamers setting up shop in several parts of the continent, resulting in orders for thousands of hours of first-run programming. He also said international markets are key to those same U.S. giants monetizing their series and movies with, for example, 54% of the total box office for U.S. films coming from international markets, according to Ampere. Getting into the weeds on the suggested measures, he said a 120% tariff on any incentive received overseas is 'one of the most concerning aspects of the proposal, effectively closing the door on U.S. producers making use of any overseas incentive.' He went on to break down what might happen if the proposed measure were introduced with a slide that pinpointed the UK and Spain as the two biggest potential losers in Europe, given the volumes of U.S. production in both countries. 'Obviously the big European markets – the UK, France, Italy, Spain, Germany – are on that list, but so is Poland, for example, and Turkey, and the Scandinavian markets. They have been the [among] biggest beneficiaries of that 'runaway' production.' Speaking about the notion of tax treaties with certain countries for films substantially produced in U.S., Bisson said the idea is interesting: 'While you still have to make a majority, or spend a majority of the budget, in the U.S., you can effectively stack or double dip incentive schemes through those treaties.' He also said any re-introduction of rules that prohibit networks (and now, SVODs) fully owning shows 'would remove one of the things that's annoyed producers so much, which is streamers taking all rights in perpetuity.' Trump has said that he would meet with industry officials, and the White House said no final decisions have been made regarding the plan. Voight, Sylvester Stallone and a group that included studios and unions later wrote a letter to Trump emphasizing the need for production incentives While punchy, the NEM presentation was, thusly, analyzing what are currently theoretical scenarios. Bisson said that the best hope for the European biz is that theory never becomes practice. 'None of this is actually happening or being put in place yet, it's just a suggestion,' he said. 'Who can predict what Trump will do next. You may have heard the nickname that Trump has been given: TACO; Trump, Always Chickens Out on tariffs. That's what we can hope will happen again when it comes to our industry and the suggested protectionism being placed on film and TV.' Ted Johnson contributed to this report. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery Tony Awards: Every Best Musical Winner Since 1949 Tony Awards: Every Best Play Winner Since 1947
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Responds To Gavin Newsom's Dare To Arrest Him, Says He 'Would Do It' If He Were The Border Czar
Donald Trump responded to California Governor Gavin Newsom's dare to administration officials to arrest him, with the president suggesting that he would support such a move by his border czar, Tom Homan. 'I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great,' Trump told reporters at the White House on Monday. 'Gavin likes the publicity … but he's done a terrible job. I like Gavin Newsom. He's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent. Everybody knows.' More from Deadline Australian Reporter Lauren Tomasi Hit By Rubber Bullet In Dramatic Footage From L.A. Protests Angry Newsom Challenges Trump Administration To "Arrest Me" As Conflict Grows In L.A. - Updated John Oliver Likens Trump-Musk Feud To 'Real Housewives': "If Either Of Them Isn't The Center Of Attention For A Single Second, They'll Die" On Saturday, Homan threatened the arrest of even public officials who tried to obstruct immigration enforcement raids in Los Angeles. With protests unfolding over the weekend, Trump ordered the National Guard to the city, in what Newsom and others said was an overreaction that would inflame the situation. As protests continued on Sunday, with scenes of some burning vehicles playing on cable TV and law enforcement trying to quell the demonstration. Disbursement non-lethal shots, flash bangs, and gas canisters were heard being fired over the crowd by the cops. Newsom was asked by NBC News and MSNBC's Jacob Soboroff about Homan's comments, and told him, 'Come after me. Arrest me.' 'Why doesn't he do that? He's a tough guy. He knows where to find me.' Trump claimed in a Truth Social post this morning that had they not called in the National Guard, 'Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated.' But a number of media commentators have noted the relative calm in the sprawling region throughout the weekend, which included the LA Pride parade and festivities. Newsom has expressed alarm by Trump's move to federalize the guard. The president's order was not specific to Los Angeles, and it has generated warnings that it could open the door to future efforts by the administration to curb protests. 'They are trying to incite violence,' Newsom said. 'They are trying to impose the kind of rhetoric that only makes conditions worse.' 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about ego,' Newsom said. Newsom also said that the state is planning to sue the administration, as he was not consulted on the National Guard decision. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery Tony Awards: Every Best Musical Winner Since 1949 Tony Awards: Every Best Play Winner Since 1947
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: How Much More Positive Head Start Evidence Do We Need to Save It?
The Trump administration's first four months have been rough on U.S. children. They certainly don't deserve the punishment. From polarized and destabilizing politics to a global pandemic, increasing environmental pressures from climate change (and more), this cohort of children is coming of age in a particularly difficult moment. And yet, we have reached what is perhaps a zenith in Trump-era politics of disinvesting in children and families. The administration's response to America's youth crisis has been stunningly consistent: again and again, it has balanced occasional, vague promises to do something constructive to address child care costs or infertility challenges on the one hand with real and stunningly concrete attacks on children's well-being on the other. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter Perhaps the most direct and comprehensive assault on children is coming through the administration's war on Head Start. At $12.3 billion last year, it's the federal government's largest-single investment in early learning, and it serves almost 800,000 children and families per year. Over its 60 years, Head Start has provided high-quality early learning as well as connecting around 40 million children and their families to comprehensive support services like health and dental care, nutrition and housing assistance. During the 2024 campaign, Donald Trump echoed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 playbook in calling for Head Start's elimination. This was hardly novel: though Head Start has long enjoyed bipartisan support, a subset of conservative researchers, activists and politicians have spent decades attacking the program. While the administration's chaotic first 100 days decimated portions of the federal government supporting health and well-being, its attacks on Head Start have been uniquely unpredictable. In January, as Elon Musk and his underlings at the Department of Government Efficiency hacked away at the federal civil service, Head Start providers across the country reported that they were unable to access their normally scheduled federal payments. This posed a particular challenge for Head Start center directors navigating the tight margins that define the early education market; hundreds of early care and learning centers warned that they were at risk of closure. Related Later in the spring, the administration abruptly pulled funding from regional Head Start centers that offer resources, support and oversight for Head Start providers. Several weeks ago, it appeared that the administration was preparing to act more decisively to abandon U.S. kids and families who depend on Head Start. On April 17, the Associated Press reported on leaked documents indicating that the Trump administration would erase Head Start funding in its forthcoming budget proposal. Once this hit the news, Head Start supporters mobilized to save the program, and the administration reversed course. While it appears that the administration isn't (yet) ready to deliver on this promised assault on children's well-being, it's worth reminding ourselves just what a stunning mistake it would be to reduce this particular investment in U.S. kids and families. Related Head Start has been studied many times, and the results are broadly positive. Research on it — and other early education programs — finds a relatively consistent pattern: Early education programs are reliably good for families and at preparing kids for kindergarten There's some waning of positive academic impacts as kids go through K-12 But the long-term impacts of early ed investments are generally positive. First, Head Start appears to be particularly effective at helping children from historically marginalized communities. Perhaps most importantly in the present political context, early education programs tend to promote better child development outcomes that create cost savings for school budgets. This mostly results from pre-K programs like Head Start reducing the likelihood that children will later require special education services or need to repeat a grade. For instance, economist Tim Bartik notes that studies show possible special education cost-savings of '23 to 86 percent.' Meanwhile, if a child repeats second (or any) grade, the public pays an additional year of per-pupil funding, and it also delays their entry into the workforce. As such, pre-K's ability to lower grade retention and keep students on track for college and career is a particularly efficient return on early education investments. Finally, early education programs like Head Start are a boon for working families because they help parents get back to work sooner after having a child. Most encouraging of all, Head Start appears to create some long-term positive effects. In 2022, researchers at the University of Notre Dame and Texas A&M found that the children of Head Start participants garnered benefits like higher high school graduation and college attainment rates, lower rates of teen pregnancy and reduced rates of interaction with the criminal justice system. For instance, critics often point to the federal Head Start Impact Study, which gathered data on programs in the early 2000s. It largely found that Head Start had positive initial effects on children's development, but that these effects 'faded out' as kids worked their way into the K–12 education system. But problems with the study's data prompted a field reassessment of its findings in the 2010s, with most researchers concluding that it meaningfully underestimated Head Start's benefits to children. This begs some critical questions about how the public should measure 'success' for Head Start. Begin here: nearly every study of nearly every early education investment shows that these programs are effective at getting kids ready for K–12 schooling. Put simply, pre-K appears to be good at getting kids 'pre'-pared for K(indergarten). Related The trouble is, political rhetoric about early education investments has sometimes presented them as an invulnerable 'inoculation' against all challenges that children may face later in life. This is the wrong way to think about whether early education investments 'work,' because it sets an impossible bar for success. Head Start — or pre-K programs more generally — cannot wholly blunt poverty, poor health or the impacts of low-quality K–12 classrooms. Indeed, even less rosy findings, like those in a recent study of Tennessee's public pre-K program, indicate a positive path forward for public early education investments. Initial studies of the program garnered headlines. While Tennessee pre-K attendees were generally more ready for kindergarten than their peers who did not attend the program, pre-K attendees scored worse on a range of metrics by the end of elementary school. This is concerning! But a more recent analysis of Tennessee's data found that pre-K's benefits were 'most likely to persist until 3rd grade among those students who went on to attend high quality schooling environments and were taught by highly effective teachers.' That is, Tennessee's pre-K programs succeeded at preparing children for kindergarten, and kids who went from those programs into higher-quality elementary classrooms continued to do better. In other words, if Head Start and other pre-K programs are measured as a one-time public investment that will solve all systemic inequities in American schools and society, they will inevitably appear to fail. But if they are measured against their ability to prepare children for elementary schools, it is clear that they are a success. Furthermore, this fairer definition of Head Start's effectiveness would allow policymakers to focus their attention on the necessary work of investing and improving K–12 schools so that they bolster children and families beyond the early years.
