Thank the Supreme Court for helping Trump return power over America's schools to parents
First, it reinforces the concept, underscored by another high-court ruling last week, that the executive branch has a fundamental right to hire and fire employees who work for . . . the executive branch.
Second, planned layoffs of more than 1,300 of the agency's 4,000 employees will significantly help President Donald Trump achieve his goal of dismantling it entirely.
This is terrific news for students, parents — and taxpayers.
The department, after all, has spent billions of taxpayer dollars and produced close to no improvement in learning — with much of that loot going to blue states and teachers unions.
If anything it's saddled schools with woke agendas, forcing boys into girls' sports and locker rooms, for example, and kowtowed to labor.
Though many of the programs it administers wouldn't be affected even if the agency were to be scrapped entirely (other agencies would simply take on the task), the hope is for less red tape and a less bloated workforce.
And removing education-policy decisions from the federal government.
Remember, the DOE didn't even exist at all until 1980. Its creation was the result of a cheap deal Jimmy Carter made for the National Education Association's endorsement.
Yet for most of the nation's history, educational policy has rested in the hands of states, towns, school boards — and parents.
True, to formally abolish the department, the prez would need Congress' approval. That may be an uphill battle for Republicans, but it's one worth fighting.
In the meantime, if Trump can rein in DOE's headcount — and narrow the scope of its work — that alone will be a tremendous victory.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AI is reinforcing the dominance of English in the workplace
Walking into Donald Trump's Oval Office is a test for any foreign leader. Last month, Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, aced it. 'You Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
8 minutes ago
- CNBC
Shares of high fructose syrup producer ADM tumble after Trump says Coca-Cola agrees to use real cane sugar
Shares of high fructose syrup producer Archer-Daniels-Midland plummeted on Thursday after President Donald Trump announced that he had persuaded Coca-Cola to use real cane sugar in its drinks in the U.S. "I have been speaking to Coca-Cola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so. I'd like to thank all of those in authority at Coca-Cola," the president wrote in a Truth Social post published Wednesday. "This will be a very good move by them — You'll see. It's just better!" Trump also wrote. In premarket trading, ADM shares were recently down nearly 3%. But the stock tumbled as much as 6% on the comments. Other related stocks also fell, including global ingredients provider Ingredion, which lost more than 7%. The move comes as the stock has seen gains over the past few months, having risen about 13% over the last three. It's also up nearly 7% year to date. When asked about Trump's announcement, Coca-Cola did not explicitly agree to the change. "We appreciate President Trump's enthusiasm for our iconic Coca-Cola brand," the company said in a statement. "More details on new innovative offerings within our Coca-Cola product range will be shared soon." Coca-Cola shares were marginally higher in the premarket Thursday, rising 0.3%. Shares have also risen more than 11% year to date, outperforming the broader market. Meanwhile, Corn Refiners Association, an industry trade group, issued a statement warning about the potential job losses that could follow such a switch. "Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar doesn't make sense," John Bode, the group's president and CEO said. "President Trump stands for American manufacturing jobs, American farmers, and reducing the trade deficit. Replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar would cost thousands of American food manufacturing jobs, depress farm income, and boost imports of foreign sugar, all with no nutritional benefit." The Trump administration has previously called on food companies to reformulate products, with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. telling executives earlier this year that he wants "the worst ingredients" out of food.
Washington Post
8 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump's immigration agenda is growing unpopular. Should he pull back?
You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. The government's mass deportation of unauthorized immigrants, a signature promise of Donald Trump's presidential campaign, is in full swing. Border crossings reached an all-time low in June, and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement — newly appropriated a $178 billion budget increase by Congress — is staging massive raids across the country. Yet Americans are souring toward the president's immigration crackdown. According to a new Gallup poll, only 35 percent of Americans approve of Trump's handling of immigration — down from 46 percent in February — against 62 percent who disapprove. Nearly four-fifths now say immigration is a good thing for the country. Why are Americans' views on immigration shifting, and what does this mean for the future of immigration policy? I'm joined by my colleagues Ramesh Ponnuru and Natasha Sarin to discuss. — Eduardo Porter, columnist and editorial board member 💬 💬 💬 Eduardo Porter So what's going on? Buyer's remorse? Ramesh Ponnuru There is enough polling to indicate that falling support for Trump's immigration policies, especially his enforcement within the United States, is a real phenomenon and not a blip. I think there are three main causes: the public perception that Trump is implementing his policies with unnecessary brutality; the fading urgency of the issue now that Trump has succeeded at the border itself; and the public's tendency to zig when a president seems to be zagging a lot. Natasha Sarin To add one: I suspect (well, as an economist, hope!) one of the reasons these efforts aren't popular is that Americans are starting to realize they are bad for the economy. In construction, 20 percent of the workforce are unauthorized immigrants. That's a big deal, and all this is massively disruptive. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo Indeed. Unauthorized immigrants account for half of workers in agriculture. So a hard crackdown would hit the price and availability of all sorts of food. Ramesh Which is one reason Trump keeps signaling that he might be willing to make an exception to his tough campaign against illegal immigration for the industries that rely on it most. Eduardo Natasha, do you agree with Ramesh's assessment here? Will carve-outs become the course of the immigration policy? Natasha Yes, but that's not enough, in some sense, to offset economic impact. Mass deportations mean fewer people are building homes and spending money in the U.S., which shrinks the economy. And Congress just gave ICE $178 billion — more than most other federal law enforcement agencies combined. Ramesh I don't see this administration pulling back. It would first have to incur much more political damage than it has so far, like the kind that led Trump to end the family-separation disaster in his first term. What remains interesting to me is that the administration has shown so little interest in expanding the use of E-Verify (which does not mean attempting to deport all undocumented immigrants, since it would apply only to new hires) so employers could do some of the work of enforcement. It would certainly raise the hackles of a lot of employers whose support Trump currently enjoys, but I think that if you're looking for the most enforcement in the least intrusive and brutal way, that's the way to go. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo The fact that E-Verify has not been deployed broadly is, to my mind, proof that no administration in the past 30 years has really been serious about eliminating unauthorized workers at scale. Natasha Agreed with Ramesh. I see no signs that the administration is pulling back from these efforts. A report came out Tuesday detailing efforts between the IRS and ICE to share data about undocumented immigrants who pay into the tax system each year. This goes against decades of norms and laws around taxpayer privacy and will impact the tax revenue we collect from unauthorized immigrants going forward — $66 billion annually! Eduardo I've been skeptical that Trump will engage in workplace enforcement for real. He would be messing with powerful business lobbies that are very influential in the Republican Party. The raids so far have been largely a performance to demonstrate he is not kidding. But he won't try to remove 8 million workers from the labor market. What's your take? Natasha Businesses are very concerned about all this. Companies — particularly in food production, tech and construction — are reporting that raids are having a negative impact on their operations. It's hard for me to guess the intent of the president or the administration. But I think generally, on matters of policy, we've learned during this term that you kind of have to take them at their word. Eduardo What do Americans actually want on immigration? Joe Biden's main problem with immigration was the hundreds of thousands of prospective asylum seekers creating this sense of chaos at the border. But that is largely over; fear of Trump apparently is a powerful deterrent. Very few migrants are showing up at the border these days. Could Trump not just take the win? Say 'mission accomplished' and not pursue undocumented migrants already living in the U.S.? Ramesh The public has conflicting impulses on immigration, which is one reason the polls seesaw in response to what presidents do. I don't think people want to see all unauthorized immigrants deported — especially 'dreamers' but really anyone who has put down roots here and followed the law. But I think the undocumented population has to appreciably shrink, and the public has to be reassured that the law will be enforced going forward. Only once that is accomplished can we move forward with steps such as offering legal status to a significant share of unauthorized immigrants. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo We all agree that some reform of the system is needed. But what would it look like? Would it have the three main pillars of prior attempts — i.e., some process to legalize undocumented immigrants who have been in the country a long time, some provision to legally provide employers with temporary migrant workers, and a mechanism that secures the border and prevents unauthorized immigrants from working? Natasha FWIW, I think the pillars are more like: border security, fixing the asylum system, expanding pathways to legal immigration in light of clear economic benefits, and easing the pathway to citizenship for people who have roots here and have positively contributed to their communities. Ramesh I don't think you can put a ton of immigration policies together in one package and expect it to work politically. That strategy has an extensive track record of failure. Reform would have to be piecemeal and sequential. I also don't favor guest-worker programs on principle — if we want people to work here, we should ask them to join our society — but if some such programs are needed to get worthwhile legislation passed, I could live with it. But we are a looong way away from that type of bargaining. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Eduardo Final thoughts? My take is we haven't seen enlightened immigration policy since the 1980s (and that attempt was also flawed). And I have zero optimism that we will achieve something enlightened now, but I'm just a grumpy old journalist. Natasha What we are witnessing now is clearly not the solution. Ramesh My advice to those liberals and Democrats who are glad to see these latest polls is to take seriously that they still have a problem: The public does not believe they are serious about enforcing the immigration laws. That's going to be a lingering weakness for them even if a backlash to Trump's policies helps them do well in 2026. Eduardo I would agree with that. Let's just see how far and how solidly the administration's tactics move the needle among voters.
