Derek Black

It's really more of a talking point as opposed to any particular substantive reason why they want to get rid of it. But that's really where it's come from. But it's often been not that serious of a critique, but obviously it's gotten very serious here in the last couple of weeks.

Well, there's the sort of immediate worries and then there's the larger worries. The immediate worries, I'll have to say, I'm not terribly worried about. I mean, if you look at the reporting that we've seen, it is interesting that the White House seems to distinguish between the things that it can do unilaterally, right, without Congress, and those things that would need Congress.

Well, there's the sort of immediate worries and then there's the larger worries. The immediate worries, I'll have to say, I'm not terribly worried about. I mean, if you look at the reporting that we've seen, it is interesting that the White House seems to distinguish between the things that it can do unilaterally, right, without Congress, and those things that would need Congress.

Well, there's the sort of immediate worries and then there's the larger worries. The immediate worries, I'll have to say, I'm not terribly worried about. I mean, if you look at the reporting that we've seen, it is interesting that the White House seems to distinguish between the things that it can do unilaterally, right, without Congress, and those things that would need Congress.

And, I mean, it's a weird silver lining, but that gives me, like, some, like, measure of comfortability in this weird, bizarre world only because, you know, two weeks ago, the administration was willing to do things that it had no authority to do, right? It sort of was claiming authority to do everything. And so there is this... at least recognition that there's not unbounded power.

And, I mean, it's a weird silver lining, but that gives me, like, some, like, measure of comfortability in this weird, bizarre world only because, you know, two weeks ago, the administration was willing to do things that it had no authority to do, right? It sort of was claiming authority to do everything. And so there is this... at least recognition that there's not unbounded power.

And, I mean, it's a weird silver lining, but that gives me, like, some, like, measure of comfortability in this weird, bizarre world only because, you know, two weeks ago, the administration was willing to do things that it had no authority to do, right? It sort of was claiming authority to do everything. And so there is this... at least recognition that there's not unbounded power.

So that's sort of the immediate threat is not that huge because the White House, Trump's power over the department or to close it up is relatively narrow. Like most of the department is established by statute and he can't just dissolve things or move things around that are created by statute. He can't take money that's for poor kids and spend them on vouchers, right? These things, the law dictates.

So that's sort of the immediate threat is not that huge because the White House, Trump's power over the department or to close it up is relatively narrow. Like most of the department is established by statute and he can't just dissolve things or move things around that are created by statute. He can't take money that's for poor kids and spend them on vouchers, right? These things, the law dictates.

So that's sort of the immediate threat is not that huge because the White House, Trump's power over the department or to close it up is relatively narrow. Like most of the department is established by statute and he can't just dissolve things or move things around that are created by statute. He can't take money that's for poor kids and spend them on vouchers, right? These things, the law dictates.

And the fact that he's And implicitly acknowledging or rather his advisers are implicitly acknowledging they need Congress's help gives me a little bit of comfort because I think that getting rid of the department is I'm not sure there's a majority in the House for that. But there's certainly not a filibuster, you know, 60 vote majority for that in the Senate. So that's short term.

And the fact that he's And implicitly acknowledging or rather his advisers are implicitly acknowledging they need Congress's help gives me a little bit of comfort because I think that getting rid of the department is I'm not sure there's a majority in the House for that. But there's certainly not a filibuster, you know, 60 vote majority for that in the Senate. So that's short term.

And the fact that he's And implicitly acknowledging or rather his advisers are implicitly acknowledging they need Congress's help gives me a little bit of comfort because I think that getting rid of the department is I'm not sure there's a majority in the House for that. But there's certainly not a filibuster, you know, 60 vote majority for that in the Senate. So that's short term.

But I think there's something far more disturbing to me, and it's the long term, this sort of idea that there's something illegitimate about the federal role in education, that there's something illegitimate about public education itself. Those are very dangerous ideas.

But I think there's something far more disturbing to me, and it's the long term, this sort of idea that there's something illegitimate about the federal role in education, that there's something illegitimate about public education itself. Those are very dangerous ideas.

But I think there's something far more disturbing to me, and it's the long term, this sort of idea that there's something illegitimate about the federal role in education, that there's something illegitimate about public education itself. Those are very dangerous ideas.

I have a piece that just came out yesterday in Slate that says, look, the federal role in public education predates the Constitution itself. Probably not many listeners are familiar or ever heard of the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787. But before we even had a United States Constitution, this foundational document laid out how our territory is going to become states.

I have a piece that just came out yesterday in Slate that says, look, the federal role in public education predates the Constitution itself. Probably not many listeners are familiar or ever heard of the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787. But before we even had a United States Constitution, this foundational document laid out how our territory is going to become states.

I have a piece that just came out yesterday in Slate that says, look, the federal role in public education predates the Constitution itself. Probably not many listeners are familiar or ever heard of the Northwest Ordinances of 1785 and 1787. But before we even had a United States Constitution, this foundational document laid out how our territory is going to become states.

And without going through all the details, Congress embeds public education in the very fabric of what it means to be a state before we even have a Constitution. And so that's very important is where we start.