Month: March 2025

Should the Department of Education Be Abolished?

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

On March 3, the Senate confirmed Linda McMahon as the thirteenth secretary of education.1 Secretary McMahon has pledged to dismantle the Department of Education in what she calls its “final mission,” and on March 11, the Department announced it was cutting nearly 50 percent of its workforce.2 President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order directing Secretary McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Education Department,” though the Department cannot be abolished unilaterally by the executive branch; this would require an act of Congress.3

What Is the Department of Education?

The Department of Education that we have today was created by Congress in 1979 as a cabinet-level department within the executive branch of the federal government.4 It consolidated resources, staff, and programs across other executive departments and agencies into one centralized place in an effort to advance its goals of student success and opportunity in education.5 It is the smallest of the 15 cabinet departments, with approximately 4,200 employees.6 However, its budget is the third largest, after the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services.7

While the Department of Education is relatively modern and education in the United States is primarily a responsibility of state and local governments, the federal government has played a significant role in education policy since the 1860s. After the Civil War, it began collecting data and offering grants to aid states in creating schools, training teachers, and covering the cost of tuition for students.8 It funded school districts and provided loans for higher education during the post-World War II education boom and Cold War-era focus on the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.9 And during the civil rights era, it enforced equal protections in schools for students and teachers regardless of their race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, or disability.10

In 2020-2021, approximately 11 percent of elementary and secondary public school funding was from federal sources, 46 percent was from state sources, and 44 percent was from local sources. With an annual budget of $268 billion, the Department of Education still primarily focuses on funding and research. It administers grants for schools and students, issues loans to students, collects and publishes data, recommends best practices, and ultimately ensures equal access to education for students across the country.11 Sixty percent of its funding goes directly to financial aid programs to help low-income students afford higher education.12 The Department of Education does not establish schools, set education standards, set graduation requirements, or create curricula.13

Why Is the Trump Administration Trying to Abolish the Department of Education?

There have been longstanding calls from the Republican Party to abolish the Department of Education. Mere months after the Department was created, the 1980 Republican platform stated that the party “supports deregulation by the federal government of public education, and encourages the elimination of the federal Department of Education.”14 Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have called for the federal government to be scaled back in size and scope, preferring issues such as education to be left solely to the states. Despite this, when put to Congress, efforts to abolish the Department of Education have been soundly defeated across party lines in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.15

Secretary McMahon argues that the country does not need the Department of Education, and President Trump has routinely criticized it as unnecessary, wasteful, and ideologically compromised.16 In President Trump’s first term, his secretary of education took steps to curtail the work of the Department by shrinking the size of its workforce, reducing its budget, scaling back nondiscrimination protections, and rescinding guidance tied to the use of federal funds.17 In the first weeks of his second term, President Trump signed an executive order to deny funding for schools that he claims promote “radical, anti-American ideologies” that “deliberately [block] parental oversight.”18 And last month, the Department of Government Efficiency cut over $900 million in research contracts from the Department.19

What Do Supporters and Opponents Say?

President Trump’s criticisms of the Department of Education reflect the larger views of those who also support its abolition and are distrustful of the federal government, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdowns, mask mandates, and the prevalence of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.20 These supporters advocate for more power to states, school boards, and especially parents to make educational choices for their students, rather than relying on a bureaucracy in Washington. They advocate for school choice programs and funding for private schools, along with parental review of school curricula and book bans on local and state levels. Additionally, they cite the Department’s large budget and stagnant student test scores as further proof that it is ineffective at achieving its goals.21

Those who oppose abolishing the Department of Education reiterate that it is not involved in setting school standards or creating curricula. Instead, they underscore the importance of the Department’s role in providing funds and enforcing antidiscrimination laws. Pell Grants administered by the Department support one-third of low-income college students, and half of all undergraduates in the United States rely on some form of federal financial aid.22 Antidiscrimination laws make sure students have equal access and opportunity to succeed without burden or bias. With inequities growing between wealthier and poorer school districts and students, they see the Department of Education as vital, especially as students continue to struggle academically in the wake of the pandemic.23

Discussion Questions

  1. How would you rate the quality of your school and your education?
  2. How important of an issue is college affordability to you?
  3. What are the most persuasive reasons for abolishing the Department of Education?
  4. What are the most persuasive reasons against abolishing the Department of Education?
  5. Would you advocate for keeping or abolishing the Department of Education? Why?
  6. What role, if any, do you think the federal government should play in education policy?

Related Posts

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today! 

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: Alex Brandon/Associated Press
[1] U.S. Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-senate-confirms-linda-mcmahon-13th-secretary-of-education-0
[2] Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/04/linda-mcmahon-education-department-final-mission-00210057; CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/11/politics/department-of-education-cuts/index.html
[3] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/06/politics/trump-education-department-shut-down-order/index.html
[4] U.S. Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/mission-of-the-us-department-of-education
[5] U.S. Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/federal-role-in-education
[6] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/us/politics/education-department-mcmahon-trump.html
[7] U.S. Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/federal-role-in-education
[8] Ibid.
[9] The Hechinger Report: https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-the-new-administration-could-be-on-the-verge-of-destroying-public-education-as-we-know-it/
[10] U.S. Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/federal-role-in-education
[11] Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-wants-to-end-the-department-of-education–and-what-will-change-if-he-succeeds-214316185.html; National Center for Education Statistics: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cma/public-school-revenue
[12] Ibid.
[13] U.S. Department of Education: https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-overview/an-overview-of-the-us-department-of-education–pg-3
[14] The American Presidency Project: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1980
[15] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/trump-republicans-education-department.html
[16] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/07/us/politics/education-department-mcmahon-trump.html
[17] Center for American Progress: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-administrations-slow-steady-undoing-department-education/
[18] White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/
[19] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/11/us/politics/musk-doge-education-data.html?smid=url-share
[20] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/03/us/moms-for-liberty-scandal-opposition/index.html
[21] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/06/us/politics/trump-republicans-education-department.html
[22] Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-trump-wants-to-end-the-department-of-education–and-what-will-change-if-he-succeeds-214316185.html
[23] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/us/reading-skills-naep.html

 

Steel, Soybeans & Security: The Debate on Tariffs Continues

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

On February 25, President Donald Trump announced that new tariffs on goods from Canada and Mexico would go into effect on March 4.1 President Trump revived the use of tariffs in 2018, ending seven decades of emphasis on free trade economic policies. Since 2018, both Presidents Trump and Joe Biden have enacted several major tariffs, significantly impacting worldwide trade.2

Tradeoffs of Free Trade

Tariffs were historically used to protect domestic businesses from imports (goods bought from other countries). Once common in overseas trade, tariffs began disappearing after World War II in favor of free trade agreements. Removing tariffs allowed Americans to buy imports at low prices.3 Imported products that were cheap to make and easy to ship quickly replaced more expensive American-made goods.4 Although consumers benefited from low prices, American manufacturers couldn’t keep up. Communities across the country suffered as local factories closed and residents lost their jobs.5

One way foreign countries keep costs down is by tolerating poor working conditions and low pay. To cut prices even more, some foreign governments also spend taxpayer dollars supporting major industries, sometimes spending less on education or infrastructure.6 The difference in business costs can be staggering. For example, American minimum wage laws require businesses to pay employees anywhere from three to ten times more than what must be paid to workers in China.7 Consequently, many American companies moved their factories overseas to lower manufacturing costs and pass those savings to their customers.

How Do Americans Feel About Tariffs?

Groups that have supported recent tariffs include labor unions, human rights activists, and communities hurt by free trade. Supporters argue that tariffs help American businesses compete with cheaper imports made with unfair or inhumane business practices.8 Additionally, President Trump has declared that the U.S. trade deficit threatens the economy. A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods than it sells to foreign buyers. In 2016, the year before President Trump took office for the first time, the trade deficit was $481 billion.9 Furthermore, leaders in both political parties have supported tariffs; not only did President Biden continue many Trump-era tariffs but he enacted additional tariffs targeting China.10

National security experts also caution that imports are a serious threat to government secrets and intellectual property. Some imported goods have compromised sensitive data with hidden programming, and importing critical resources like energy or steel puts the United States in a vulnerable economic position.11 Tariffs can help American industries capture consumer spending, allowing them to grow. A strong manufacturing sector protects the economy from global shortages.

In contrast, most economists argue that tariffs harm Americans.12 Businesses simply raise prices on imported goods, leaving consumers without cheaper alternatives. Americans buy less, and the economy slows. Furthermore, countries have retaliated by enacting their own tariffs on American goods. For example, after tariffs went into effect in 2018, Chinese officials targeted Midwest farmers by implementing high tariffs on American soybeans and shifted soybean trade to Brazil. In the years since, American farmers have needed billions of dollars in federal aid to recover from the loss in revenue.13 Opponents also point out that tariffs did nothing to balance trade, as America’s trade deficit has more than doubled in the last seven years.14 Currently, economists predict that the new 2025 tariff proposals will increase inflation; consumers will pay more, and businesses will suffer.15

Support for tariffs among some groups of Americans has grown, especially among Republicans and independents living in areas where decades of free trade devastated the local economy. However, research indicates that tariffs have hurt Americans’ wallets and cost over 170,000 jobs over the last seven years.16 If tariffs are harming the economy, why hasn’t support declined? Polling indicates that opinions on tariffs, just as on other issues, are based on a combination of values, not just data points or dollars—an important consideration in policy discussions.

Discussion Questions

  1. What might make an American industry vulnerable to competition from imports?
  2. In your opinion, what is the greatest benefit that tariffs offer industries or the economy? What is the greatest drawback of tariffs?
  3. Should the United States continue using tariffs? Why or why not?

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today! 

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: https://images.unsplash.com/
[1] CNBC: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/02/24/trump-says-tariffs-on-canada-and-mexico-will-go-forward.html
[2] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-biden-trump/index.html
[3] PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/trump-favors-huge-new-tariffs-how-do-they-work
[4] National Bureau of Economic Research: https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c13861/c13861.pdf
[5] New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/03/magazine/nafta-tarriffs-economy-trump-kamala-harris.html
[6] George Washington University Law: https://studentbriefs.law.gwu.edu/ilpb/2021/10/28/fast-fashion-getting-faster-a-look-at-the-unethical-labor-practices-sustaining-a-growing-industry/
[7] Stanford Review for Economic Policy Research: https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/low-wage-earners-hit-hardest-trade-china
[8] Business and Human Rights Resource Center: https://media.business-humanrights.org/media/documents/files/documents/Final_Blog_Post_Tariff_Act_March_2020_002_0.pdf; Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-lawmakers-take-aim-chinas-trade-practices-2025-02-24/
[9] The Fulcrum: https://thefulcrum.us/governance-legislation/trumps-trade-deficit
[10] CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/13/politics/china-tariffs-biden-trump/index.html
[11] BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-64206950
[12] PBS: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/trump-favors-huge-new-tariffs-how-do-they-work
[13] University of Illinois, Farm Policy News: https://farmpolicynews.illinois.edu/2025/02/farm-income-to-increase-in-2025-thanks-to-federal-aid/
[14] Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/more-pain-than-gain-how-the-us-china-trade-war-hurt-america/
[15] USA Today: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2025/02/16/trump-tariffs-inflation-economy-impact/78398446007/
[16] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics: https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/2024-01/Help%20for%20the%20Heartland%20-%20The%20Employment%20and%20Electoral%20Effects%20of%20the%20Trump%20Tariffs%20in%20the%20United%20States.pdf

 

A Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations

Posted on by Ashleigh Barber

“The United States should do whatever it can to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace. –Secretary of State George C. Marshall1

A Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations has gained support as tribal leaders and advocates call on the United States to fulfill its longstanding trust and treaty obligations.3 The phrase invokes the European Recovery Program—commonly known as the Marshall Plan—which the United States implemented after World War II to rebuild war-torn Europe. Today, Indigenous leaders are advocating for a similarly ambitious investment to repair the harm caused by centuries of policies that have left tribal nations underfunded and deprioritized.3

The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund (USET SPF) spearheads advocacy for this proposal. This blog post reflects the perspectives and language of the Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations: A Restorative Justice and Domestic Investment Plan published by USET SPF. It provides an overview of the proposed plan and includes discussion questions and further resources to help educators explore this issue with students.

Historical Context: Tribal Nations and the United States

Tribal nations have long been categorized as sovereign political entities, as reaffirmed by the U.S. Constitution,4 treaties, federal statutes, and Supreme Court decisions.5 Despite this legal political status, the United States has continuously failed to fulfill its trust and treaty obligations. This negligence has led to widespread disparities in infrastructure, education, health care, and economic opportunity within tribal communities.

The federal government has acted to terminate, assimilate, and destabilize tribal nations through forced removal, violence, broken treaties, and systematic underfunding. Even in the modern era, federal appropriations for tribal nations have fallen short of what is necessary to meet basic needs.6 This has led to significant gaps in services and infrastructure that are commonplace in other communities.

What Is the Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations?

“What we are talking about is not an ask for handouts. This is about the United States living up to the promises that it made to Tribal Nations—promises that were made in exchange for our land and resources.” –Kitcki Carroll (Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma), Executive Director of USET and USET SPF

The Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations is a proposal to rectify the historical injustices and ongoing neglect of trust and treaty obligations through a significant investment that acknowledges and begins to address the United States’ debt to Indigenous peoples. Key components of the plan include:

  • A Major Financial Investment: Modeled on the Marshall Plan for Europe, the proposal calls for a large-scale investment in tribal nations to establish a baseline of economic and social stability.
  • Creation of a Department of Tribal Nation Relations: This proposed cabinet-level department would oversee the execution of trust and treaty obligations, ensuring funding is allocated effectively and in consultation with tribal leaders.
  • Mandatory, Direct Funding: The proposal shifts federal funding for tribal programs from discretionary to mandatory and ensures that funds are allocated directly to tribal governments, rather than through competitive grants.
  • Tribal Consultation and Consent: The proposal strengthens tribal nations’ ability to exercise self-governance by requiring federal agencies to obtain direct consent, rather than just consulting with tribal leaders, before implementing policies affecting their communities.
  • Infrastructure and Economic Development: Investments in roads, housing, broadband access, health care facilities, schools, and economic opportunities are tailored to the needs of tribal nations.

Comparing the European and Tribal Nations Marshall Plans

The original Marshall Plan allocated approximately 1-2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) to rebuild European nations, providing over $13 billion (equivalent to nearly $135 billion today) for a four-year program.7 By contrast, the United States has historically underfunded tribal nations, with appropriations amounting to just 0.07 percent of the value of land taken from Indigenous peoples. If the United States were to invest at a level comparable to the European Marshall Plan, this would translate to hundreds of billions of dollars dedicated to rebuilding tribal nations.

Why This Matters

Understanding the Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations allows students to engage with key civics concepts, including federal treaty obligations and trust responsibilities, tribal sovereignty, and the long-term impacts of federal Indian policy. This allows students to critically analyze how policy decisions shape tribal self-governance and explore restorative justice in U.S.-tribal nation relations.

Discussion Questions

  1. What were the goals and outcomes of the original Marshall Plan for Europe? How does the Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations compare?
  2. How has the United States historically failed to fulfill its trust and treaty obligations to tribal nations? What have been the consequences?
  3. What would a fully funded and properly implemented Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations mean for Indigenous communities?
  4. What are the potential challenges or criticisms of implementing a Marshall Plan for Tribal Nations?
  5. How does learning about this issue change your perspective on tribal nation rights and U.S. policy?

Other Resources

 

As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.

Close Up is proud to be the nation’s leading nonprofit civic education organization, working with schools and districts across the country since 1971. If you would like to partner with us or learn more about our experiential learning programs, professional development, or curriculum design and consulting, contact us today! 

 

Sources

Featured Image Credit: USET SPF
[1] https://www.marshallfoundation.org/the-marshall-plan/speech
[2] https://www.nihb.org/resource/nihb-resolution-22-09-on-support-for-a-marshall-plan-for-tribal-nations/
[3] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/116885/documents/HHRG-118-II24-20240320-SD004.pdf
[4] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/
[5] https://narf.org/category/tribal-sovereignty
[6] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107674#:~:text=Tribal%20applicants%20experience%20systemic%20barriers,to%20help%20alleviate%20these%20barriers.
[7] Marshall Plan (1948). Retrieved October 22, 2024, from National Archives: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marshall-plan