Morning Wire - The End of the Education Department?

Episode Date: July 20, 2025

With a green light from the Supreme Court, the Trump administration begins a dramatic downsizing of the Department of Education. Defending Education’s Sarah Parshall Perry joins us to break down the ruling, what it means for state-led schooling, and where essential federal education services could go next. Get the facts first on Morning Wire.   - - -   Privacy Policy: https://www.dailywire.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

60% of the vans on Amazon come to vander independent like SAC Magic. Hello, here Camille of Sack Magic. Our comprise chode fraud are fabriced in Quebec, and our presence on Amazon enlarge our clientele to the world entire.

Trouvee de petitions like one other. Onesaw. After decades of GOP talk about shutting down the Federal Department of Education, the Supreme Court has given the Trump administration the go-ahead to dramatically downsize the department.

The drastic staff reduction is another big step toward what team Trump hopes will be the department's complete dissolution. In this episode, we sit down with legal experts Sarah Partial Perry to discuss the significance of the high court's ruling and how the fate of the education department will affect America's schools. I'm Daily Wire Executive Editor John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Sunday, July 20th, and this is a weekend edition of Morning Wire. Joining us now to discuss the future of the Department of Education as Sarah Partial Perry

Vice President and Legal Fellow at Defending Education. Sarah, great to have you. you back on. Sure. I love being on your show. Well, we love having you on the show. Well, thank you. Look, we recently had a big ruling from the Supreme Court another 6-3 decision. It lifted a lower court's injunction against the Trump administration, and it's allowed the administration to proceed with laying off around 1,300 Department of Education staff. Before we get to the significance of this, what was the logic behind that ruling? Very simply, and again, we've got the majority of the court thinking rightly on issues like this. The chief executive officer of the nation, the commander in chief, is in charge of overseeing the functions and the staffing of the executive agencies.

This is nothing to do with the entity of the Department of Education itself, which is, of course, a creature of statutory law and cannot be dismantled without congressional input and involvement. And it's unlikely that, of course, we would ever get through a 60-vote threshold in the Senate regardless. But here, the Supreme Court was simply dictating whether or not the president has the presidential power to be able to hire and fire the right people. As we know, many of these individuals were previous political or career appointees, and it's fully within his right constitutionally to be able to do that as conceived by the actual constitution itself. So a pretty open and shut case. In terms of the dissent, was there really an argument that the

president didn't have the authority to do this? You know, it's always very interesting to see how creative the dissent has been lately. And of course, Justice Jackson and Justice Sotomayor have been notable in their fiery dissents lately. But once again, they were clear that their thinking on this was that it required congressional input because obviously the Department of Education itself is a creature of statutory law. But again, this has nothing to do with the actual operation of the department or whether or not the department is itself being dismantles. This is simply a staffing decision, which is itself an exercise of executive authority. So does the Trump administration have the authority to all but officially dismantle this department?

Well, it can begin the process of downsizing. And in fact, we know that six of the 12 regional offices for Department of Education have already been shut down, which has resulted in a significant decrease in workload. And there is, of course, naturally some increase in case law and case loading that will happen through the remaining staff appointees. But, of course, that is a necessary consequence of a bloated bureaucracy. What this Department of Education seeks to do and what the president seeks to do. And what the president seeks to do is ultimately ensure that this is a fast, nimble and streamlined

Department of Education unless and until we can get congressional involvement to be able to dismantle the agency altogether. Now we have Education Secretary Linda McMahon with this very odd task of dismantling the department that she oversees. I don't know if we've ever seen something quite like this. The ruling paves the way for her to do a lot of that. She argues that states can educate children much better than the federal government. do we have evidence that this is true?

Well, I can tell you we can look no further than some of the blue states like Mississippi and Louisiana, which of course have instituted, for example, literacy standards that outpace significantly the yields and the results of those children who are reading in the fourth and eighth grades, which are the grades at which the National Association of Education Placement rankings are recorded nationally. Those come out every single year. And what we've seen is that it does not require a lot of money to educate, well. And in fact, in some poverty-stricken areas, we have soaring literacy rates in math and English, specifically because we've got good chancellors, good state governors, good state secretaries of

education who have required rigorous education standards and are less concerned with throwing money at the problem of American education and are more concerned with the rigor and right pedagogical thinking on getting these kids best suited to succeed in college and beyond. Now, Sarah, you mentioned Mississippi there. The Mississippi Miracle is what they're calling it. Did that have anything to do with the federal government? Was there a role that the federal government played in their reforms? You know, it's very interesting. They had very little to do in this. In fact, the literacy bill itself that instituted more rigorous reading curricular standards was actually instituted all the way back in 2013. So this specifically is a goal that the state of Mississippi has been working toward for some time. In fact, they funded a two-year course in evidence-based reading methods for all elementary school teachers. They have a focus on nonfiction reading. They have a focus on reading complete novels, which, studies indicate on a widespread basis actually lead to not only increase literacy rates

but higher IQ rates as well. We are not in an age generally in American education where we focus children's attention for longer than it takes to read, for example, a blog post or a news article online. This is a generation of immediate

and instant satisfaction. I know this full well being the mother of three, 21 and under, and unfortunately it's going to require some heavy-duty investment, the elimination of screen time, and really getting back to the chalkboard on what it looks like for these kids to succeed and to read well. You know, it's kind of interesting. As a former college professor myself, I used to conduct this sort of unscientific poll. How many students had read a complete book during their four years in high school? My rough estimate was about 15 percent

would say they'd actually read a complete book in all of high school. It really shocked me. Yeah. And in fact, we've even seen that in college. as well. In fact, right now, 35% of American college freshmen, only 35% of them have read more than five complete books in the course of any given educational year. Now, these are kids who are in college enrolled full-time, who should ostensibly be reading complete books, whether nonfiction or fiction, but your sense on that is entirely accurate. Well, I always love hearing, I'm correct. Now, a lot of our listeners may be surprised to learn that the DOE does not actually educate. children. What is its function? What is its primary function? To spend money, it would appear. In fact,

ever since 1980, when it was formally adopted by Congressional Act, we have spent a total of $3 trillion with a T dollars on American education. And right now, our national averages are lingering at about 27% math literacy for eighth graders and 30% English literacy for eighth graders. We are in the middle of the pack of Western developed nations, which is inexcusable for the amount of money that we throw at the problem. Now, part of this, I believe, is the fact that previous administrations have been so keen to partner with big money through the unions and partner on social experimenting that we don't obviously focus exclusively on math, English, science, the curricular standards that are required to ensure that our kids are performing up to par with their international

counterparts, but 27% and 30% respectively is an unconscionable outcome for what we've actually spent through the Department of Education. They do not educate. In fact, here lately, it's looked a lot more under the previous administration like indoctrination, but they are simply the holders of the purse strings and the manager of civil rights complaints throughout the entire country. They do not educate a single student. You actually wanted to ask you about a few of those programs that have already been shut down in the second. But in the defense of the Department of education, has it had any successes that we should preserve, if maybe through other agencies? I love that question because, of course, having worked at the Department of Education in the

Office for Civil Rights as the senior attorney there, I have to tell you, I feel very passionately about the application and the securing and protection of civil rights protections for all American students. In fact, I had two sons, one with an IEP plan, which was given to him through the Individuals with Disabilities and Education Act, and one with a 504 plan, which is granted to him through the Rehabilitation Act. These are two federal civil rights laws that have protected students with disabilities,

with differential learning outcomes for years. They should be preserved. Women's sports is another opportunity, which guarantees the equality under the title line of the education amendments of boys and girls, men and women, and all educational-funded programs through the Department of Education,

Civil rights protections need to maintain their status, and whether that's through the Department of Education, through the Department of Justice or through the Department of Health and Human Services, which originally used to apply these civil rights laws, remains to be seen, but those are protections that should remain in place. Right. So some of the funding programs, the idea is to shift them over to some other departments. You named a couple there. What would be the primary departments to handle most of these programs? Well, I mentioned the Department of Health and Human Services. Remember, before the Department of Education was a creation with a creature of statutory law, it used to be the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, or Hugh. So there was a point at which HHS was actually enforcing special protections for civil rights laws through American education outlets, specifically so for students with disabilities. Now, also at Department of Justice. Department of Justice is the nation's law firm, and it has a portfolio for each of the individual. agencies, it has an entire portfolio just for the Department of Education itself. Those are tasks that could congressionally be moved over under something like the General Education Provisions Act that would

allow the transference of some of those duties. But again, that would require congressional input and oversight, but it is entirely possible. All right. So again, moving some of these programs will require Congress weighing in. Yes, absolutely. And I think that's something that we need to maintain consistency in repeating. This cannot be simply undone by pulling the plug and walking out the door on the last day of the Trump administration. It is ultimately going to require congressional involvement. Now, a couple of programs have already been shut down by the Trump administration. Can you expand on that a little bit more for us? Sure. In fact, many of these can be tracked back to some of his initial executive orders that go back to the first weeks and months of the Trump administration,

one of which that comes immediately to mind is restoring meritocracy to American education and the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We realize that DEI programs, and we have no further to look than Harvard University, Columbia University, where these types of programs were rampant, but what they were was essentially tax-funded discrimination. So every average American was funding with their tax dollars, discriminatory programs, for everything like racially separate graduation programs, racial affinity groups, scholarships, only based on your skin colors, scholarships, only on your sex. These are patent violations, and especially so after the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in students for fair admission versus Harvard, they have had a slap on the wrist.

They've had the Supreme Court weigh in. They've had the Trump administration way in. They are consistent bad actors. And in fact, their racially discriminatory programs date all the way back to the 1920s when they tried to eliminate American Jewish students from being on college campus for purposes of diluting the white ratio. So Harvard is a consistent bad actor. They had been public enemy number one for this administration and the dismantling of DEI programs, which is really race discrimination by another name, is not only saving taxpayer dollars. It is also ensuring a colorblind American education for every student. Legally, does it look like the administration's actions on those issues are going to hold up?

Or do you get the sense that we could see reversals? No, we don't. In fact, obviously looking no further than the students for fair admission case itself, which not only took a look at a look. at Harvard University, but also UNC Chapel Hill. So we were dealing with both a private and a public university. So the court made very clear that not just under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which requires race neutrality in publicly funded programs, but also under the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment,

both of them required colorblind American education. I think the Trump administration is fully within its legal and constitutional rights here. All right. Final question. What are the next steps that you expect from McMillard? man and company. Well, this is going to be an interesting remaining three years, I think for the Trump administration, not the least of which is because the Supreme Court has just granted cert in two cases specifically on the constitutionality and legality of women's sports protection acts, one coming out of the state of Montana, one coming out of the state of West Virginia, and in very short order,

probably by as soon as this calendar year or the beginning of next, we may receive final clarity from the Supreme Court on whether or not women's sports can indeed. be separated by sex, and that will, of course, direct the Department of Education's actions going forward and provide them, I believe, significant air cover for their continued protection of women on college campuses everywhere. They're going to keep us busy reporting on this, and we'll have you on for sure to talk more about all this stuff as it happens. Sarah, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks again. That was Sarah Partial Perry, Vice President and Legal Fellow at Defending Education, and this has been a weekend edition of Morning Wire.