Walz slams Department of Education cuts, says it will undermine schools and children
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has slammed the decision by the Trump administration to lay off nearly half of the staff at the Department of Education, a move he says will have a "detrimental impact on children."
The Department of Education announced on Tuesday it is laying off 1,378 employees beginning on March 21. A further 572 employees have been accepting voluntary resignation opportunities and retirement over the last seven weeks.
In a statement, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said the decision reflects her department's "commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most: to students, parents, and teachers."
She claims the department still intends to "deliver on all statutory programs that fall under the agency's purview, including formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants, funding for special needs students, and competitive grantmaking."
However, Walz took opposition to the federal government's decision.
"I guarantee you, there weren't a lot of parents that went into the voting booth and voted to have their schools undermined. To have the $1.4 billion be at risk, the nearly 860,000 students in Minnesota to be impacted by this, 2,500 schools — and it was not thought out, the chaos that would go through this," Walz said.
"But then I heard [the federal government] push back: 'Well we're going to do competitive grants.' Who is going to administer those? You fired everybody," he said.
Walz believes the "competitive grants" the department highlighted will likely to distributed based on whether you agree with the Trump administration or not.
"And we've seen how this works with states. Ruby Bridges wouldn't have needed a police escort to go to school if we would've had the federal government and the Civil Rights Unit and the Department of Education in place. That's one of the reasons we have it so that doesn't happen, so that every child has access," Walz said, expressing fears that the gutting of the Department of Education could lead to discrimination.
Walz also took aim at McMahon's claim that the firings were "of the worst and they kept the best."
"[McMahon] is either the most efficient person that has ever lived on this planet or she's not telling you the truth," Walz said.
The governor also made the following comment during a Democratic Governors call on Wednesday:
'This is undermining our economic wellbeing for the future, it's undermining our competitive advantage, and it's undermining the moral authority that every child truly matters. So what Donald Trump continues to do is the idiocy of whatever he thinks at the time is a good talking point. Linda McMahon said she fired half the [staff at the Department of Education] but only the bad ones. She missed one. She missed one for sure, and that's herself.'
Minnesota Department of Education Commissioner Willie Jett said its partnership with the federal department "is critical," adding: "This isn't just about politics; this is about that students get the education that they so rightly deserve."
Jett said they are seeking clarity on whether the U.S. Department of Education is dissolved and as of Wednesday, haven't received an answer.
"Let me be clear: uncertainty is not a strategy. Disrupting the foundation of our schools without a clear plan puts students, teachers, and communities at risk," Jett said. "But while federal actions remain unclear, here in the State of Minnesota our commitment is not. The Minnesota Department of Education, we're still here, and we're not going anywhere. We will continue to fight for the resources, the stability, and policies that our schools, families, students and communities need."
AFGE Local 252, a union that represents educators, released a statement from president Sheria Smith, saying: "We will fight these draconian cuts and urge all Americans to stand up and contact their Members of Congress… to protect the Department of Education's vital work, working people, and our Nation by rejecting these political games."
NPR reports minutes after the statement was released, Smith said she was laid off, as well as the rest of the chapter's union officers.
The federal government has fired many employees of its Office for Civil Rights Division, with offices in Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, New York, Philadelphia and San Francisco being shuttered, according to ProPublica. The office is one of the federal government's largest enforcers of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, investigating thousands of allegations of discrimination that includes disability, race and gender each year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
13 minutes ago
- Fox News
Musk signals potential softening of feud with simple one emoji response to clip of Trump wishing him well
President Trump's relationship with Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, which appeared to publicly blow up last week as the two feuded in public, took a softer tone on Monday when Musk responded to a clip of the president on X. "We had a great relationship and I wish him well — very well, actually," Trump said on Monday in a clip that was posted by conservative influencer ALX. Musk responded to that post with a heart emoji on Monday evening. Earlier in the day, Fox News Digital reported that the public spat between the two billionaires appeared to be losing steam after Musk seemingly issued support from Trump's handling of the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles. "Governor Gavin Newscum and 'Mayor' Bass should apologize to the people of Los Angeles for the absolutely horrible job that they've done, and this now includes the ongoing L.A. riots," Trump said late Sunday in the post Musk shared. "These are not protesters, they are troublemakers and insurrectionists." Additionally, Musk also re-posted one of Vice President JD Vance's posts on X about the riots. "This moment calls for decisive leadership," Vance said, sharing a screenshot of a post from Trump about how his administration would address the riots. "The president will not tolerate rioting and violence." Musk also appeared to post a self-deprecating joke about himself on X on Sunday which many interpreted to be a veiled reference to the fallout with Trump. "It's outrageous how much character assassination has been directed at me, especially by me!" Musk posted. While speaking with reporters in the Oval Office on Thursday, Trump said that he was "very disappointed" by Musk's vocal criticisms of the bill. The president claimed that Musk knew what was in the bill and "had no problem" with it until the EV incentives had to be cut. On X, Musk called that assessment "false." Trump turned to social media to criticize Musk, who he appointed to find ways to cut $2 trillion after forming the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). "Elon was 'wearing thin,' I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!" Trump said in one post. In another post, Trump said, "I don't mind Elon turning against me, but he should have done so months ago. This is one of the Greatest Bills ever presented to Congress. It's a Record Cut in Expenses, $1.6 Trillion Dollars, and the Biggest Tax Cut ever given." "If this Bill doesn't pass, there will be a 68% tax increase, and things far worse than that. I didn't create this mess, I'm just here to FIX IT. This puts our Country on a Path of Greatness. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" At one point, Musk referenced late pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in relation to Trump as part of the larger tirade in a comment that several Republicans told Fox News Digital went "too far." Musk deleted that post days later. Other posts from Musk included a claim that Trump would not have won the election without his help while accusing Trump of "ingratitude." In another post, Musk suggested that Trump should be impeached and replaced by Vice President Vance. Trump told Fox News on Friday that he isn't interested in talking to Musk, adding that "Elon's totally lost it." Trump also said to Fox News' Bret Baier that he isn't worried about Musk's suggestion to form a new political party, citing favorable polls and strong support from Republicans on Capitol Hill.
CNN
17 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump officials quietly discuss moves in LA that avoid invoking Insurrection Act, but it's not off the table
President Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, the architect of his immigration crackdown, have repeatedly used the word 'insurrection' to describe the protests in Los Angeles, hinting they might invoke a rarely-used law by that name to dramatically escalate US military intervention on city streets. But behind the scenes, administration lawyers have been working to craft a much less confrontational way of protecting the federal government's ability to carry out immigration enforcement, hoping to avoid further inflaming the situation, according to multiple people briefed on the discussions. At issue is the Insurrection Act, which permits the president to use military forces to end an insurrection or rebellion on US soil. On Monday, the administration mobilized more than 700 Marines based out of the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center to join the thousands of National Guard troops Trump activated over the weekend. But they were deployed under a different legal authority and so far, most of those troops have worked to protect federal buildings, not put down civil unrest on city streets. Invoking the Insurrection Act would allow them to expand their mission. Trump has taken part in conversations surrounding the act, according to two sources familiar with the matter, but has not made a final decision on what to do. One administration official said those involved had effectively decided not to use the act – but the lawsuit announced by California Monday challenging the move to federalize National Guard members may change their calculus. Now, that official and others said, the administration is going to weigh what happens on the ground in LA Monday night and over the next few days – and could still invoke the act if necessary. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. Trump's top advisers have been watching closely. Over the course of the day Monday, Homeland Security and Pentagon officials provided regular updates on the situation in Los Angeles to the Situation Room, where Miller presided. The message from Miller was clear: the administration wasn't backing down in LA, and they wouldn't 'give up' the city, according to a source familiar with the discussions. On Monday, Miller posted on X, 'This is an organized insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States.' Homeland Security assets, like US Customs and Border Protection resources and personnel, are expected to remain in the city for the foreseeable future as Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to carry out immigration enforcement operations. Speaking to reporters Monday, Trump said of the protests: 'I wouldn't call it quite an insurrection, but it could have led to an insurrection. I mean that was a serious, that was a lot of, that was a lot of harm that was going on last night. I watched it very closely, and it was amazing the job that the National Guard did.' Hours earlier, Trump said of the demonstrators, 'They're insurrectionists. They're bad people, they should be in jail.' Attorney General Pam Bondi has been actively involved in crafting the administration's response. The White House Counsel's office coordinated with the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's office to help outline the legal strategy for the president's weekend memorandum that authorized the deployment of National Guard troops under federal authority. That was done over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, the sources said. The president's order in LA relies on what is known as Title 10 powers. In the Justice Department's view, those powers allow the president to use the military to intervene when enforcement of federal law is being impeded. Trump confronted a similar debate during his first administration, when he and Miller similarly pushed for a heavy-handed use of troops to quell riots in Washington and Portland, Ore., in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd. In 2020, Attorney General Bill Barr rejected a heavier federal response and sent in US Marshals and other civilian law enforcement to protect the federal courthouse, which was under siege from nightly violent protests. In Washington, D.C., the federal government used National Guard military police from other states, under authorization of governors in those states, in Washington, D.C., to help federal law enforcement restore order. Asked in September 2020 about using the National Guard, he suggested he could not intervene in racial justice demonstrations without a request from state authorities. 'Look, we have laws. We have to go by the laws,' Trump said at an ABC News town hall: 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor.' CNN's Samantha Waldenberg contributed to this report.
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Sends Marines to L.A. on 4th Day of Immigration Protests
Members of California's National Guard outside of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles on Sunday. The state of California on Monday filed suit against the Trump administration over its move to take control of the state's National Guard and deploy its troops to Los Angeles to protect immigration enforcement agents. Gov. Gavin Newsom had foreshadowed the filing in a social media post earlier on Monday. Before the complaint was filed, the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, said in a news conference on Monday that the lawsuit would ask a court to hold unlawful and set aside Mr. Trump's order. 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops,' Mr. Bonta said. The lawsuit argues that Mr. Trump's federalization of the state's National Guard was illegal because he bypassed Mr. Newsom, Mr. Bonta said, and because it violated the Tenth Amendment, which protects state rights. He argued that local law enforcement had been capable of handling the situation and could have requested support from state partners had it been necessary. Mr. Bonta also said that the situation had been calming before Mr. Trump's move incited new unrest. 'Trump and Hegseth jumped from 0 to 60,' Mr. Bonta said, referring to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. 'Bypassing law enforcement expertise and evaluation, they threw caution to the wind and sidelined strategy in an unnecessary and inflammatory escalation that only further spurred unrest.' The U.S. Justice Department press office declined to comment. Mr. Newsom's office foreshadowed the litigation in a letter to Mr. Hegseth on Sunday. 'In dynamic and fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, state and local authorities are the most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and property,' Mr. Newsom's legal affairs secretary, David Sapp, wrote in the letter. 'Indeed the decision to deploy the National Guard, without appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation.' Mr. Trump said on Saturday that he was imposing federal control over at least 2,000 National Guard troops for at least 60 days in order to quell the protests, and directed Mr. Hegseth to determine which ones to use. The order did not specify that the troops needed to come from California, but so far the California National Guard has been used, according to the U.S. Northern Command. Mr. Trump's order suggested that protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and detention facilities were interfering with federal functions, and that they constituted a rebellion against the federal government's authority and its ability to enforce federal law. That is the standard for invoking the Insurrection Act to use the military for domestic policing. But the order did not invoke the Insurrection Act. Instead, it cited only a statute that allowed the president, under certain circumstances, to federalize a state's National Guard. It also appeared to gesture toward a claim of inherent presidential power to use troops to protect federal functions. Mr. Bonta acknowledged that isolated pockets of trouble have surfaced amid protests that remained peaceful, and he suggested that it was Mr. Trump's provocation that caused them to deteriorate into violence. Mr. Bonta also said his office had studied the 1807 Insurrection Act and was prepared to respond if Mr. Trump later tried invoking it as an alternate legal authority to deploy the U.S. military to address the protests. But Mr. Bonta reiterated that he was not aware of any conditions suggesting that the protests in Los Angeles necessitated federal troops, and that the local authorities were 'completely prepared' to address any developments. Mr. Trump's order raises many legal complexities, including whether a rebellion against federal authority is indeed taking place, and whether a court could reject a president's claim that the situation rises to the level that would make it lawful to send in troops. But there is also a basic procedural issue: whether it was lawful for Mr. Hegseth to cut Mr. Newsom out of the administration's decision-making process. Mr. Trump's order instructed Mr. Hegseth to consult with state governors about calling up National Guard units, and the call-up statute Mr. Trump cited said that orders for National Guard call-ups 'shall be issued through the governors of the states.' But Mr. Sapp's letter complained that Mr. Hegseth had sent a directive to the general in charge of California's National Guard informing him that the federal government was taking control of 2,000 of its troops without consulting Mr. Newsom or relaying the order through the governor. In the letter to Mr. Hegseth on Sunday, Mr. Sapp focused on that procedural problem and added that local law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles had the matter in hand. He also invoked the principle of states' rights. 'There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame the situation, while simultaneously depriving the state from deploying these personnel and resources where they are truly required,' Mr. Sapp's letter said. Mr. Trump's move was the first time in about 60 years that a president had sent troops under federal control into a state to quell unrest without a request from the state's governor. That last happened during the civil rights movement, when state governors were resisting court orders to desegregate public schools. The last time a president used military force to carry out police functions on domestic soil was in 1992, when President George H.W. Bush sent troops into Los Angeles to calm widespread rioting that followed a jury's acquittal of police officers who had been videotaped beating a Black man, Rodney King. But in that case, both the California governor and the mayor of Los Angeles had requested the federal assistance.
