In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to dismantle the Department of Education (DOE)—a federal agency that has long overstepped its constitutional boundaries and failed the American people. Critics are panicking, but the reality is this: education was never meant to be controlled by Washington, and the DOE was never about the kids.

A Department Built on Politics, Not Education

The Department of Education was created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter not because of any urgent need for federal oversight, but to secure support from the teachers' unions in his re-election bid. It was a political maneuver, not an educational reform. In fact, the Department of Education Organization Act explicitly states:

"The establishment of the Department of Education shall NOT increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education, which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States."

The Act also claims that the Department was meant to:

"PROTECT the rights of State and local governments and public and private educational institutions...and improve the control of such governments and institutions over their own educational programs and policies."

Yet, since its creation, the DOE has done the exact opposite. It has centralized power, dictated curriculum, and manipulated funding to push ideological agendas, stripping states, parents, and local communities of the authority that was promised to them.

Federal Control Has Failed Students

Since the DOE took control, test scores have plummeted, student achievement has stagnated, and spending has skyrocketed. The U.S. spends more per student than almost any other country, yet American students rank embarrassingly low in math, reading, and science compared to their international peers.

The DOE has poured billions of taxpayer dollars into programs that have done nothing to improve education. Instead, the department has used its funding power to push radical leftist ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT), gender theory, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, turning schools into Marxist indoctrination centers rather than places of learning.

Education or Activism? What the DOE Has Really Done

Former professor C.S. Lewis warned in his book The Abolition of Man that modern education would stop teaching students how to seek truth, wisdom, and virtue. Instead, it would train them to be activists, loyal only to the state and its latest ideological obsession.

This is exactly what has happened under the DOE’s reign. Instead of focusing on math, science, reading, and history, our schools have been transformed into factories that churn out students who know more about intersectionality and protest tactics than basic U.S. civics.

The DOE and its allies in academia have erased classical education, which once taught students to seek truth, beauty, and goodness. They have replaced it with a system that teaches children to hate their country, distrust their families, and worship government control.

Restoring Power to Parents and the States

By dismantling the DOE, Trump is doing exactly what Congress originally intended, returning education to the states and local communities.

Some critics argue that without the DOE, federal funding might be withheld from certain states if they teach things the government disagrees with. But this argument ignores reality: the federal government has already been using funding as a weapon to control states. The DOE has dictated everything from testing standards to curriculum choices, forcing states to comply with leftist agendas or risk losing funding.

If states truly want control over their education, they should fund their own schools instead of relying on federal money with strings attached. That is what real educational freedom looks like.

The Left’s True Fear: Losing Their Money Machine

The real reason the Left is panicking is not because they fear losing education quality (which they’ve already destroyed), but because the DOE is a massive money-laundering operation for the Democratic Party.

Here’s how it works:

1. Your tax dollars fund the DOE.
2. The DOE sends billions to universities and public schools (particularly for DEI, CRT, and left-wing initiatives).
3. University faculty, who overwhelmingly donate to Democrat politicians, receive this money.
4. That money cycles right back into Democrat campaigns, securing their power.

By dismantling the DOE, Trump is cutting off one of the biggest financial pipelines that fuels left-wing politics. That’s the real reason they are terrified.

In other words...

Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education is a victory for the Constitution, for parents, and for the future of America’s children. The DOE has spent decades failing students, undermining local control, and turning schools into activist factories.

By restoring power to states, parents, and local communities, this move will allow schools to focus on real education again not political indoctrination. It is time to raise a generation of children who seek knowledge, truth, and excellence, rather than one trained to blindly serve the state.

This is not just about education; it’s about saving the future of America.

A recent article titled "Trump’s Deportation Play: Right Goal, Wrong Move" argues that President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) of 1798 to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is legally and strategically flawed. However, this argument misunderstands the constitutional authority of the executive branch, the validity of the AEA, and the role of the judiciary in national security matters. Let’s break it down point by point.

The Alien Enemies Act Is Not a Stretch, It’s the Law

The claim that the AEA is meant only for wars between nations ignores the text of the statute itself. The law grants the President the power to act against foreign nationals during times of conflict or invasion not just in declared wars. The article dismisses the idea that Tren de Aragua qualifies under this law, but that argument ignores the evidence that Venezuela’s government facilitated their entry into the U.S.. When a criminal force enters the country with state backing or direction, it meets the criteria for a “predatory incursion” under the AEA.

Furthermore, the argument that the AEA is "outdated" is legally meaningless. The U.S. Constitution itself is older than the AEA; does that mean it’s no longer valid? A law remains enforceable unless repealed, and the AEA has never been struck down or repealed by Congress. It is still part of the legal framework for national security.

Judicial Overreach Is the Real Issue

The article claims that Trump’s use of the AEA gave activist judges an easy legal excuse to block him. But the bigger issue is judicial overreach. Federal courts do not have unlimited power to interfere with executive national security decisions. The President, not unelected district judges, is responsible for national defense. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, but courts cannot seize executive powers that the Constitution explicitly grants the Commander-in-Chief.

The courts did not stop the Biden administration from mass-releasing illegal aliens, yet they now block a president from removing dangerous foreign criminals. This double standard is a constitutional crisis, and Trump is addressing it by using laws that Congress has already passed.

Existing Immigration Laws? Not a Better Option

The article argues that Trump should have relied on existing immigration laws instead of invoking the AEA. But immigration courts are already overwhelmed, and activist judges often block deportations on technicalities. Waiting for years of litigation is not a real solution; it’s an excuse for inaction.

The suggestion that Trump should have sent Tren de Aragua members to Guantanamo Bay instead does not solve the legal issue. If judges are willing to block deportations now, they would also find ways to challenge Guantanamo detentions. The President’s approach of invoking a clear, existing statute that does not require endless court battles is legally sound and ensures immediate action.

Trump Is Following the Law, Not Bending It

The article suggests that Trump is setting a dangerous precedent by using a national security law for deportations. But this argument is backwards. The real danger is allowing courts to override the President’s constitutional authority to defend the country.

Trump’s move is not about political optics. It is about restoring executive authority that has been eroded by activist judges and bureaucratic delays. The Constitution does not give federal judges command over immigration enforcement. The President is acting well within his authority to remove foreign threats without having to litigate every single case for years in immigration courts.

In other words...

Tren de Aragua must be deported, and President Trump has the legal and constitutional power to do so under the Alien Enemies Act. The judicial overreach that has stalled deportations for years is the real crisis, and Trump’s actions are a direct challenge to a broken system that has failed to protect American citizens.

Ignoring the clear text of the AEA, misrepresenting the President’s constitutional role, and claiming that existing immigration laws would have made this easier are flawed arguments that do not hold up to scrutiny. If the courts continue to interfere with the President’s national security decisions, Congress has the power to check the judiciary through impeachment, defunding, or restructuring lower courts. The separation of powers must be restored, and enforcing the law as written is the only way to do it.

Legal Precedents & Laws That Support Trump’s Authority

1. Alien Enemies Act of 1798 – Grants the President power to detain or deport nationals of hostile nations during times of invasion or conflict. Still valid and in effect today.

2. Haig v. Agee (1981) – Supreme Court ruled that the President has broad authority in national security matters, including actions against foreign threats.

3. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952) – While limiting executive power in domestic matters, the ruling affirmed that the President has greater authority in foreign affairs and national security.

4. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950) – The Supreme Court held that the executive branch has plenary power over the admission and exclusion of aliens, and that courts should not interfere with national security decisions.

5. Trump v. Hawaii (2018) – The Court reaffirmed that the President has broad discretion to exclude foreign nationals from the U.S. when national security is at stake.

6. Congress’s Power Over the Judiciary – The Constitution gives Congress the ability to remove lower courts, limit their jurisdiction, defund them, or impeach judges who abuse their authority. This is a legitimate constitutional check when courts overstep their bounds.

President Trump is enforcing a law written by the Founding Fathers, not twisting legal boundaries. The real constitutional crisis isn’t his enforcement of immigration laws. It’s the judiciary’s overreach into executive national security decisions. The Commander-in-Chief has the authority and obligation to protect the nation from foreign threats, and Congress has the power to rein in activist judges when they obstruct that duty for political reasons.

As Stephen Miller laid out in his recent interview (watch here), the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 gives the President clear and unquestionable authority to remove foreign threats without interference from unelected judges. In the interview, Miller obliterates a CNN reporter, exposing their misrepresentation of the law and refusal to acknowledge the President’s constitutional powers. When pressed, the reporter couldn’t even answer basic legal questions about whether a district judge has the right to direct troop movements, because they do not.

This is not a legal gray area; the Constitution is clear. Allowing a single judge to override the President’s national security decisions is not law and order—it’s legal chaos.

As Democrats struggle to recover from their historic 2024 defeat, they are launching a new initiative: holding “People’s Town Halls” in Republican-held congressional districts to regain momentum before the 2026 midterms. Led by figures such as Senator Bernie Sanders and former VP candidate Tim Walz, this strategy aims to pressure Republicans on issues like Social Security, veterans' benefits, and food assistance.

However, despite the Democrats’ optimism, the strategy is flawed. Political data, electoral trends, and historical precedent suggest that these town halls will do little to shift the political landscape. Here are seven key reasons why this initiative is unlikely to succeed.

1. Democrats Are Fighting on Unfavorable Terrain

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has announced town halls in several Republican-held districts, including: