Erica Meltzer, national editor at Chalkbeat, dives deep into the looming possibility of eliminating the Department of Education under President-elect Trump. She discusses the challenges ahead, such as the transfer of educational responsibilities to individual states and its implications for civil rights and funding. The conversation also touches on ongoing debates surrounding religion in public education and the complex nature of political promises versus actual governance. Meltzer sheds light on what this could mean for the future of education in America.
Donald Trump's proposal to close the Department of Education aims to shift control to states, raising concerns about educational disparities and funding.
The selection of cabinet members reflects a mix of political loyalty and strategy, impacting Trump's ability to balance party interests and foreign policy.
Deep dives
Trump's Proposed Education Overhaul
Donald Trump has announced plans to significantly alter the education system by proposing the closure of the Department of Education and returning control to the states. This initiative is part of a broader effort to implement his vision of a more nationalistic education agenda, inclusive of promoting patriotism and reinstating prayer in schools. Critics question the feasibility of this plan, as dismantling the Department of Education would require Congressional approval, and there's skepticism about political support for such a drastic change. Additionally, the implications of shifting educational control could lead to disparities in funding and support for vulnerable students, raising concerns about the quality of education that students in different states would receive.
Potential Cabinet Appointments and Their Implications
In filling out his administration, Trump has made notable cabinet picks that could shape various policies, including rumored selections such as Marco Rubio for Secretary of State and Kristi Noem for Secretary of Homeland Security. These choices reflect a blend of loyalty and political strategy, as Noem's history, including controversial actions, may stir both support and opposition. Furthermore, the cabinet’s makeup could influence Trump's ability to manage competing interests within his party, especially as his administration aims to balance isolationist rhetoric with traditional foreign policy stances. This delicate dynamic raises questions about how effectively Trump can appease his diverse base while executing a cohesive agenda.
Climate Policy and Industry Concerns
As Trump moves forward with plans to reduce climate regulations, surprising voices from within the oil industry are advocating for a more measured approach to climate policy. ExxonMobil's CEO has publicly warned that drastic changes could destabilize business operations and hinder effective long-term strategies for emission reduction. This tension illustrates a complex reality where industry leaders are cautious about their future amid Trump's commitment to escalated fossil fuel extraction and withdrawal from international agreements like the Paris Accord. The juxtaposition of Trump’s environmental plans with the oil executives' perspective underscores the unpredictable nature of climate politics during his administration.
President-elect Donald Trump announced more appointments on Tuesday, giving us a fuller picture of what his incoming administration is going to look like (tl;dr: It's bad). One cabinet spot that’s still open, though: Secretary of Education. Whoever gets the job, they’ll likely be tasked with implementing Trump's campaign promise to close the Department of Education, a long-time GOP goal that dates back to the Reagan Era. Erica Meltzer, national editor at Chalkbeat, explains why keeping that promise will be pretty difficult.
And in headlines: Arizona Democrat Ruben Gallego is headed to the Senate, the New York judge overseeing Trump’s hush money trial delayed a decision on dismissing the president-elect’s conviction, and the chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil says the incoming Trump administration should avoid drastic changes to American climate policy.