Trump order to close Education Department sparks congressional action, lawsuits

Lawmakers, school advocates and teachers’ unions are taking swift action after President Donald Trump’s executive order to begin dismantling the Department of Education, one of his most controversial moves yet.

Opponents of Trump’s action responded with promises of legal retaliation. But supportive lawmakers may beat them to the chase, with U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy, R-La., and Mike Rounds, R-S.D., each planning to introduce legislation to completely eliminate the department.

“I agree with President Trump that the Department of Education has failed its mission,” Cassidy said. “Since the Department can only be shut down with Congressional approval, I will support the President’s goals by submitting legislation to accomplish this as soon as possible.”

Rounds said he is already discussing legislation with Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “that would return education decisions to states and local school districts while maintaining important programs like special education and Title I.”

Trump already shrunk the department’s workforce to half its size last week. His executive order Thursday directs McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely,” as far as legally possible.

For now, that means the department like enforcing Title IX and civil rights laws, funding special education and disability programs, and overseeing student loans and Pell grants, Trump said. On Friday, Trump said the Small Business Administration would take over the nation’s student loans.

But the ultimate goal is to redistribute these programs among other federal departments and agencies, which would require congressional approval.

School choice organizations are praising Trump’s plan to eventually eliminate the Education Department as a necessary development that will save taxpayers’ money and return power to states, local governments, and parents.

“These are the first steps towards reforming an American education system that should have always been a state and local proposition,” Parents Defending Education Vice President Sarah Parshall Perry said. “We are looking forward to continuing our mission to empower parents and students in educational environments that are once again value-neutral, and devoid of radical ideologies”

Supporters also point to how the department has spent $3 trillion taxpayer dollars since its creation by congressional legislation in 1979. Meanwhile, U.S. students rank 28 out of 37 member countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and standardized test scores have remained flat for decades.

ACE Scholarships, which provides aid to lower-income K-12 students, said in a statement that the Department of Education’s efforts have been “a wasteful distraction” and that the president’s “new approach” to education “puts children first by increasing choice and empowering parents instead of Washington bureaucrats.”

But public school advocacy organizations and teachers unions are already preparing lawsuits against what they say is an unconstitutional move.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.8 million pre-K through 12th-grade teachers, had a simple message for Trump after the executive order: “See you in court.”

The New York-based United Federation of Teachers stated that “we are working with our partners to file lawsuits to stop this executive overreach.”

Democracy Forward, a legal services nonprofit, is also planning to join the fight.

“We will be filing litigation against this action and will use every legal tool to ensure that the rights of students, teachers, and families are fully protected,” President and CEO Skye Perryman stated. “Since Inauguration Day, the Trump-Vance administration has been taken to court more than 100 times, and we will do it again this time.”

Trump opponents argue that dismantling the department will cause property taxes to spike nationwide, strain public school resources and could cause struggling schools to close, expanding class sizes in the remaining schools.

“Beyond the obvious issue that the Education Department can’t be eliminated without an act of Congress, Trump’s order is yet another wild and illicit power grab,” Co-President of Public Citizen Lisa Gilbert said. “Attempting to destroy the cabinet agencies tasked with promoting and improving education isn’t just irresponsible, it is immoral, and will hurt the very fabric of our nation, as we keep generations of students from achieving their full potential.”

The Education department provides roughly 10% of funding for public education, with the vast majority of funding coming from state and local taxes.

The majority of Americans also appear opposed to ending the department, with a Marist poll in early March showing 63% of U.S. residents either oppose or strongly oppose getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education, while 37% of residents either strongly support or support abolishing the department.

Thérèse Boudreaux

Related Topics:#TheCenterSquare DepartmentOfEducation ThereseBoudreaux TrumpClosingEducationDepartment

Up Next

Welcome to the Era of Energy Realism

Don't Miss

Social workers get millions to push DEI in schools

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

It’s on! Federal Election called for April 28

COVID-19 / 4 hours ago

10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried This Week

David Clinton / 5 hours ago

You’re Actually Voting for THEM? But why?

Agriculture

It’s time to end supply management

Published on March 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Ian Madsen

Ending Canada’s dairy supply management system would lower costs, boost exports, and create greater economic opportunities.

The Trump administration’s trade warfare is not all bad. Aside from spurring overdue interprovincial trade barrier elimination and the removal of obstacles to energy corridors, it has also spotlighted Canada’s dairy supply management system.

The existing marketing board structure is a major hindrance to Canada’s efforts to increase non-U.S. trade and improve its dismal productivity growth rate—crucial to reviving stagnant living standards. Ending it would lower consumer costs, make dairy farming more dynamic, innovative and export-oriented, and create opportunities for overseas trade deals.

Politicians sold supply management to Canadians to ensure affordable milk and dairy products for consumers without costing taxpayers anything—while avoiding unsightly dumping surplus milk or sudden price spikes. While the government has not paid dairy farmers directly, consumers have paid more at the supermarket than their U.S. neighbours for decades.

An October 2023 C.D. Howe Institute analysis showed that, over five years, the Canadian price for four litres of partly skimmed milk generally exceeded the U.S. price (converted to Canadian dollars) by more than a dollar, sometimes significantly more, and rarely less.

A 2014 study conducted by the University of Manitoba, published in 2015, found that lower-income households bore an extra burden of 2.3 per cent of their income above the estimated cost for free-market-determined dairy and poultry products (i.e., vs. non-supply management), amounting to $339 in 2014 dollars ($435 in current dollars). Higher-income households paid an additional 0.5 per cent of their income, or $554 annually in 2014 dollars ($712 today).

One of the pillars of the current system is production control, enforced by production quotas for every dairy farm. These quotas only gradually rise annually, despite abundant production capacity. As a result, millions of litres of milk are dumped in some years, according to a 2022 article by the Montreal Economic Institute.

Beyond production control, minimum price enforcement further entrenches inefficiency. Prices are set based on estimated production costs rather than market forces, keeping consumer costs high and limiting competition.

Import restrictions are the final pillar. They ensure foreign producers do not undercut domestic ones. Jaime Castaneda, executive vice-president of the U.S. National Milk Producers Federation, complained that the official 2.86 per cent non-tariffed Canadian import limit was not reached due to non-tariff barriers. Canadian tariffs of over 250 per cent apply to imports exceeding quotas from the European Union, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA, or USMCA).

Dairy import protection obstructs efforts to reach more trade deals. Defending this system forces Canada to extend protection to foreign partners’ favoured industries. Affected sectors include several where Canada is competitive, such as machinery and devices, chemicals and plastics, and pharmaceuticals and medical products. This impedes efforts to increase non-U.S. exports of goods and services. Diverse and growing overseas exports are essential to reducing vulnerability to hostile U.S. trade policy.

It may require paying dairy farmers several billion dollars to transition from supply management—though this cartel-determined “market” value is dubious, as the current inflation-adjusted book value is much lower—but the cost to consumers and the economy is greater. New Zealand successfully evolved from a similar import-protected dairy industry into a vast global exporter. Canada must transform to excel. The current system limits Canada’s freedom to find greener pastures.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Business

A Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs

Published on March 23, 2025

Todayville

By David Clinton

Speaking of foreign tariffs, Canada’s hands are not exactly clean

It’s one thing to oppose the various iterations of recently threatened U.S. tariffs: many of those carry the potential to inflict serious harm on Canada and Canadians and we’re right to be nervous. However, whether or not Canada’s many external-facing policies use the term tariff in their titles, we have more than a few protectionist trade barriers of our own. I thought it would be useful to list some of Canada’s more obvious protectionist policies.

Subscribe to The Audit

Unfortunately, one thing these examples lack is context. It’s no secret that international trade is complicated. Some of the trade barriers I’m going to describe are policy responses to legitimate safety issues. And, even among those restrictions that were designed to protect local industries, I couldn’t usefully estimate whether there are enough of them to define our total trade ecosystem.Nevertheless, here’s what I did find.The Customs Tariff Act governs Canada’s import tariffs. All goods entering Canada from countries on the Most-Favored-Nation list that aren’t eligible for lower rates through trade agreements are subject to tariff charges as high as 17 percent. Here are some practical cases of imports from the U.S. that aren’t covered by the CUSMA trade agreement:

U.S. t-shirts using imported fabric could face an 18 percent tariff, adding $18,000 to a $100,000 shipment.
A $30,000 U.S.-assembled car with Asian parts incurs $1,830 in duties.
$50,000 of U.S. strawberries could face $4,250 in seasonal duties if applied.
$200,000 of steel wire from the U.S. could face $108,000 in extra anti-dumping duties.

Canada’s supply management system for dairy, poultry, and eggs is a notorious example of a policy that looks, walks, and quacks just like ~~a duck~~ an import tariff. Supply management is governed by a combination of federal and provincial laws, including the Export and Import Permits Act and the Farm Products Agencies Act. Regulations can hit over-quota imported cheese with rates as high as 245.5 percent and chicken can be taxed at 238 percent. And that’s assuming you somehow manage to score an import permit from Global Affairs Canada.The Canadian Food Inspection Agency enforces strict sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that often require layers of inspections or certification requirements that can significantly raise compliance costs. The differences between some of those requirements and an economic tariff are not always obvious.The Canada Border Services Agency collects an excise tax on imported liquor. For example, a U.S. exporter looking to ship 100 litres of 40 percent ABV whiskey to Canada will face a duty of $467.84 (100 × 0.4 × $11.696). That duty must be paid by the importer.In addition, various provincial liquor control boards apply fees and markup costs on imported alcohol, which effectively create price barriers for foreign products (when they’re even allowed on store shelves).Book Importation Regulations limit parallel imports of foreign editions in order to protect Canadian publishers. I assume this is why so many major international publishing companies maintain Canadian offices and, on paper at least (so to speak), publish special Canadian editions.The various Canadian Content (CanCon) rules governing broadcast media will also undermine the principle of free trade, even if those rules won’t necessarily increase import costs.Here are some examples of regulatory compliance rules that aren’t always just about safety:

Electrical product safety certification rules sometimes requires foreign electronics manufacturers to repeat testing despite already having UL certification, adding 3-6 months to market entry.
US medical device companies can face duplication of regulatory submissions and maintenance of separate quality systems due to Health Canada requirements.
Chemical manufacturers must submit detailed testing data specific to Canadian requirements in order to register their products.
Small US food producers must implement separate packaging lines for Canadian-bound products to satisfy nutrition labeling requirements.

This isn’t to say there’s necessarily anything morally wrong with any of those rules. And, as I noted, I’m not sure whether Canada’s overall trade profile is more restrictive than our international peers. But, when faced with foreign tariffs, it can’t be said that Canada’s hands are perfectly clean.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.