Tag: Democrats

  • Most Americans Believe in the Effectiveness of Childhood Vaccines — But There’s a Catch – The 74

    Most Americans Believe in the Effectiveness of Childhood Vaccines — But There’s a Catch – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of The 19th. Meet Barbara and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

    Although a majority of Americans are confident that childhood vaccines are highly effective against serious illness, Republicans’ trust in vaccine safety and support of school requirements is dropping, according to new polling from Pew Research Center.

    Sixty-three percent of Americans are extremely or very confident in the effectiveness of childhood vaccines, according to a survey published Tuesday. But Democrats and those who lean Democrat are much more likely than Republicans and Republican-leaners to hold that view — 80 percent versus 48 percent.

    And while the majority of Americans believe in the safety of vaccines — 53 percent believe childhood vaccines have been tested enough for safety and 51 percent agree that the childhood vaccine schedule is safe — there is significantly more uncertainty among Republicans. For Democrats, 74 percent show high confidence in the safety testing of vaccines and 71 percent believe the childhood vaccine schedule is safe. For Republicans, those numbers are 35 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

    “Both things can be true, that people believe in vaccines’ effectiveness overall and the confidence is a little softer on safety,” said Eileen Yam, director of science and society research at Pew who was part of the primary research team. “But writ large, that’s been pretty stable to see confidence in vaccines. But at the same time, when it comes to things like school requirements, or ‘telling me what to do,’ or requiring me to do something — that’s where you see the bristling on the Republican side.”

    Americans have become more skeptical of requiring that children get the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to attend public school. Sixty-nine percent support it, a decline from 82 percent in 2016. Most of the drop can be attributed to Republicans — with just 52 percent believing in the requirement, compared to 79 percent in 2016. For Democrats, that support was 83 percent in 2016 and actually climbed to 86 percent this year.

    This all comes amid a major measles outbreak in the United States that started in Texas and has spread to multiple other states. And while students are required in each state to get the MMR vaccine to attend public school, officials in Florida have indicated a willingness to drop that requirement.

    Pew found broad and consistent support for the MMR vaccine: 84 percent believe its benefits outweigh its risks (of which there are minor side effects). When Pew first started asking about this in 2016, support was at 88 percent. Yam said the findings show some agreement on the benefits of the MMR vaccine. While 92 percent of Democrats believe the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, 78 percent of Republicans do, too.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist who has revamped a key panel that helps decide vaccine policy, has questioned the safety of the MMR vaccine without evidence. He has the backing of President Donald Trump, who has perpetuated misinformation this year about childhood vaccines.

    Pew surveyed parents and found a majority with minor children (57 percent) say they are extremely or very confident in childhood vaccines’ effectiveness. Republican parents are far less likely than Democratic parents to have that confidence (45 percent versus 71 percent), belief in safety testing (29 percent versus 63 percent) and the childhood vaccine schedule (27 percent versus 58 percent).

    Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say medical scientists should have a major role in decisions about childhood vaccines (85 percent vs. 62 percent). There are more partisan fissures on the role of parents: 71 percent of Republicans say that parents of young children should have a major role in policy decisions about childhood vaccines. For Democrats, it’s 46 percent.

    “That speaks to just a divergence in trust in science that we’ve been tracking since before the pandemic,” Yam said. “Just Republicans since the pandemic, their confidence in scientists, the way they look at the CDC has just dropped off much more than on the Democrat side. Democrats have had fairly stable views on scientists and on the CDC, in contrast to Republicans.”

    Pew also examined how recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations have influenced Americans’ decisions around getting a COVID-19 shot. The agency recently agreed with Kennedy’s new vaccine panel to stop recommending the shot to everyone and to instead leave the choice up to people. Forty-four percent say they have heard nothing at all about the CDC’s changes to recommendations. Among those who have heard at least a little, 63 percent say it has had no influence on whether they got an updated vaccine.

    “The one big takeaway there is that policies really can’t influence behaviors if people haven’t heard about the policies or the recommendations,” Yam said. “And in this case, a lot of people haven’t heard about it, and some when they have, their minds were made up. They’ve already kind of decided, and it really didn’t influence their behavior one way or the other.”

    This story was originally published on The 19th.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74

    Have Democrats Lost Voters’ Trust on Education? Not According to Most Polls – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Chalkbeat Ideas is a new section featuring reported columns on the big ideas and debates shaping American schools. Sign up for the Ideas newsletter to follow our work.

    Democrats are in disarray on education — according to a growing chorus of Democrats.

    A variety of left-leaning journalists, politicians, and advocates have all recently claimed that voters have become disillusioned with the party’s approach to schools. Often, these commentators cite anger over pandemic-era closures and argue that Democrats need to embrace tougher academic standards or school choice.

    “For decades, when pollsters asked voters which party they trusted more on education, Democrats maintained, on average, a 14-point advantage. More recently that gap closed, then flipped to favor Republicans,” wrote former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel last month.

    Is this emerging conventional wisdom true, though? This assertion has typically relied on one or two surveys, rather than a comprehensive look at the data. So I compiled all publicly available polls I could find that asked voters which party they preferred on education.

    The verdict was clear: In more than a dozen surveys conducted this year by eight different organizations, all but one showed Democrats with an edge on education. This ranged from 4 to 15 points. Among all 14 polls, the median advantage was 9 points. Although Democrats appear to have briefly lost this edge a few years ago, voters again now tend to trust Democrats on the issue of education, broadly defined.

    The narrative that Republicans had wrested the issue of education from Democrats emerged in 2021, after Virginia’s Glenn Youngkin won a come-from-behind victory in the governor’s race after campaigning on parents’ rights.

    Long-running data from the Winston Group, a political consulting firm, showed that in late 2021 and early 2022 Republicans really had eroded Democrats’ lead on education. The parties were even briefly tied for the first time since the early 2000s, when former President George W. Bush was championing No Child Left Behind. Polling commissioned in 2022 and 2023 by Democrats for Education Reform, a group that backs charter schools and vouchers, also showed Democrats falling behind on education.

    Since then, though, Democrats appear to have regained their edge. In the run-up to the 2024 presidential election, the party held at least a 10-point lead, according to Winston Group. Other polls from last year also found that more voters preferred Democrats’ approach on education, even as the party lost the presidency.

    Emanuel pointed me to polling from 2022. “Democrats have not gained ground as much as Trump has cost GOP gains they have made,” he says when asked about the more recent surveys.

    This year in Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger easily won in her bid to replace Youngkin. Education was one of her stronger issues, according to a Washington Post survey.

    Some argue that these election results disprove the idea that Democrats are losing on schools. “That’s not what panned out at all,” says Jennifer Berkshire, a progressive author who writes and teaches about education. She notes that the Republican governor candidate in New Jersey also tried to make schools an issue and lost badly.

    The Winston poll shows Democrats’ advantage is currently below its peak between 2006 and 2009 but is comparable to many other periods, including the tail end of the Obama administration and part of the first Trump administration.

    Keep in mind: These surveys ask about education broadly, not just K-12 schools. When given the option, a good chunk of voters don’t endorse either party’s approach. For instance, a YouGov survey found Democrats up 39%-32% on education with another 29% saying they weren’t sure or that the parties were about the same.

    The one public poll in which Democrats did not have an advantage came from Blue Rose Research, a Democratic-aligned firm. Ali Mortell, its head of research, says different survey methodologies can lead to different results.

    Regardless, she wants to see Democratic politicians lean into the issue more. “Say they do have that trust advantage right now, [education] is still not something that they’re really talking about a lot,” Mortell says.

    One of the top messages that resonates with voters focuses on addressing teachers’ concerns about stagnant pay and large class sizes, Blue Rose polling finds.

    Democrats’ lead on education doesn’t appear to have grown much over the last year, according to surveys from Winston, YouGov, and Ipsos. That’s somewhat surprising since Trump’s approval has sunk generally and is low on education specifically.

    Jorge Elorza, the CEO of Democrats for Education Reform, points to a survey it commissioned showing the two parties tied when it comes to making sure schools emphasize academic achievement. “Democrats should be focused on delivering results,” he says. “When we ask voters about that, it’s a toss up.” A separate DFER poll found the party with only a 1-point lead on who voters trust to ensure “students are prepared for success after high school.”

    Democrats’ overall polling advantage on education does not necessarily speak to the substantive merits of their policies, however. One analysis found that Democratic-leaning states have seen bigger declines in student test scores in recent years. At a national level, Democrats have not offered a particularly clear message on K-12 education, unlike Trump.

    “For the last six years there’s [been] no proactive agenda for Democrats on educational excellence,” says Emanuel.

    The party’s approach to schools has clearly lost a segment of America’s political tastemakers including center-left nonprofit executives, political strategists, and even some Democratic politicians. Yet, despite insistent assertions otherwise, regular voters don’t seem to share this view, at least at the moment.

    I relied on the following polls from this year, with Democrats’ lead in parentheses: Blue Rose Research (February, tied); Fox News (July +15); Ipsos (February +6, April +4, October +7); Napolitan News Service (August +9, October +6); Navigator (August +9); Strength in Numbers (May +11, October +15); YouGov (May +7); Winston (April +15, June +14, August/September +11). To find these surveys, I conducted my own search and asked a variety of large pollsters, as well as a number of advocates. Differences in results between polls can come from random error, as well as differences in sampling and question wording. Although the precise wording varied, each poll asked voters which party they preferred on education.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Democrats warn feds against selling student loans to private market

    Democrats warn feds against selling student loans to private market

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Over 40 Democratic lawmakers have called on the Trump administration to abandon reported talks about the possibility of selling off a chunk of the federal government’s $1.6 million student loan portfolio to the private market.
    • In a Sunday letter to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the federal lawmakers warned transferring student debt ownership to the private sector could strip borrowers of legal protections and violate the law if the loans are sold at a loss to taxpayers.
    • “The federal government cannot simply eliminate its legal obligations to borrowers,” the members of Congress said. “Federal law requires that the protections guaranteed in the original terms of a borrower’s loan must be honored even if the Department of Education proceeds with a sale.”

    Dive Insight:

    The letter from Democrats — signed by U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Ron Wyden, among others — follows an October report from Politico about talks in the Trump administration that centered on a partial sale of the government’s student loans. 

    According to Politico, senior officials in the U.S. departments of Education and Treasury have recently discussed selling high-performing student loan debt to the private sector. 

    The administration has also broached the possibility with finance executives, among them potential buyers of the loans, and is considering bringing in consultants or banks to review the portfolio, the news outlet reported.

    In addition to calling for the Trump administration to cease any talks, the lawmakers requested detailed information on any potential plan and the names of those who have participated in any discussions. The Education and Treasury departments did not respond to requests for comment by publication time on Tuesday. 

    The Education Department’s Federal Student Aid office oversees the loan portfolio and contracts out servicing to private entities. Student loan receivables represent one of the largest assets on the nation’s balance sheet. 

    A 1998 law allows the government to sell student loan assets — so long as it is done at no cost to the government — which could be why no such sale has taken place to date. The Sunday letter said the first Trump administration mulled the possibility but never pursued it, pointing to Wall Street Journal reporting that the agency hired the consultancy McKinsey & Co. at the time to review the portfolio..

    The Democratic lawmakers and others have argued the no-cost provision means the government could not sell the loans for less than what it would collect if it kept them on the public balance sheet. 

    In 2024, FSA estimated the net value of the government’s student loan portfolio at about $1.1 trillion. However, a 2025 analysis from the Project on Predatory Student Lending argues this figure “is almost certainly wrong,” based on data and assumptions that “have proven wildly off-base.”

    That figure represents the government’s own valuation of the loan portfolio. In the case of a sale, the relevant figure would be the price a private sector buyer would be willing to pay. 

    The student lending project said the government has several advantages as a lender over private companies, including unlimited time to collect, the ability to withhold federal payments such as tax refunds to offset loan defaults, and immunity from legal liability for loan servicing failures. All of that means student loans are likely worth more to the government than to the private sector, according to PPSL. 

    Along with a potential loss to taxpayers, the Democratic lawmakers warned of the possible impact to student borrowers from transferring loan assets. 

    “By selling parts of the federal student loan portfolio, the Trump Administration may seek to unlawfully strip borrowers of their legally guaranteed protections,” they wrote. 

    The lawmakers pointed to protections such as income-driven repayment, public service loan forgiveness, disability and death discharges, and debt relief for those determined to have been defrauded by predatory colleges. 

    “Private lenders typically do not guarantee these kinds of borrower rights,” they wrote. “Profits would likely come at the expense of the borrower via fewer protections and less generous benefits. However, the federal government cannot simply eliminate its legal obligations to borrowers.”

    PPSL argued in its analysis that removing provisions for borrowers could make the loan portfolio more valuable to private buyers, but those loan provisions in contracts with the federal government represent property protected by the Fifth Amendment. 

    “Any law stripping repayment rights or other favorable terms from student loan contracts would potentially trigger an obligation to compensate student loan borrowers for the loss of those terms,” the organization said.

    Source link

  • Senate Democrats hold a press conference on Trump admin’s funding of SNAP benefits

    Senate Democrats hold a press conference on Trump admin’s funding of SNAP benefits

    Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) will hold a press conference to “discuss the Trump administration’s refusal to use a $5 billion emergency Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) fund.”

    Source link

  • Virginia Democrats Accuse GMU Rector of Conflict of Interest

    Virginia Democrats Accuse GMU Rector of Conflict of Interest

    George Mason University is facing multiple investigations related to its diversity, equity and inclusion practices, which the Trump administration has said violate federal civil rights laws.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Robert Knopes/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images | Maxine Wallace/The Washington Post/Getty Images

    Virginia Democrats want George Mason University board rector Charles Stimson to recuse himself from federal investigations into the university as well as discussions about the university president’s future, saying that his role at the Heritage Foundation, which recently released a report critical of GMU, presents a conflict of interest.

    The letter comes almost two weeks after a state Senate committee blocked 14 gubernatorial appointments to university boards, including six at GMU, which left the Board of Visitors without a quorum. The letter also follows the Heritage report that accused GMU of attempting to hide diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Stimson has had several jobs at Heritage, where he’s currently deputy director of the organization’s legal and judicial studies center.

    The Trump administration has accused GMU of engaging in discriminatory hiring practices and implementing “unlawful DEI policies” and has opened several investigations into the university.

    However, GMU president Gregory Washington has stood his ground, arguing that the federal government rushed the investigation and disputing its findings while rejecting calls to personally apologize. Now, as GMU’s Board of Visitors is stuck without a quorum while a legal challenge over the appointments plays out, state Democrats are seeking to neutralize Stimson in his role as rector.

    A Call for Recusal

    Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell and other top Democrats in the Senate, L. Louise Lucas and Mamie E. Locke, specifically took issue with the Heritage report’s call to “withhold federal taxpayer funds from universities that violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” which the Education Department accused GMU of doing. State Democrats argued that Stimson’s employer is essentially seeking to harm the university.

    “This creates an untenable ethical conflict where your employer’s published position is diametrically opposed to your duties as Rector,” the lawmakers wrote to Stimson.

    (Stimson is one of multiple university board members appointed by Republican governor Glenn Youngkin with distinctly right-wing profiles, including some with ties to conservative think tanks, the Trump administration, GOP megadonors and former Republican politicians, Inside Higher Ed found earlier this year.)

    State Democrats also raised concerns over how he became rector.

    “The appearance of impropriety is compounded by the fact that your selection as Rector reportedly occurred only after direct intervention by Governor Youngkin, raising questions about whether your Heritage Foundation affiliation influenced that appointment,” the Democrats wrote.

    Given what they view as a conflict of interest, the three Democratic leaders called on Stimson to recuse himself “from all Board of Visitors deliberations, discussions, and votes” involving Washington’s employment status or performance evaluations, GMU responses to federal DEI investigations or compliance concerns, GMU funding strategies and university DEI policies.

    “If you cannot commit to this recusal, I believe the appropriate course would be your resignation as Rector to eliminate this conflict entirely,” Surovell and the other Democrats wrote to Stimson while calling on him to respond “outlining the specific steps you will take to address this conflict.”

    Neither GMU officials nor Stimson responded to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Youngkin accused Democrats of trying to undermine university boards.

    “Virginia’s progressive left elected officials are trying to paralyze the governing boards of Virginia’s colleges and universities by using despicable bullying and intimidation tactics,” Youngkin wrote in a post on X.

    Faculty Support

    As Washington, GMU’s first Black president, has found himself in the Trump administration’s cross hairs and fighting back, board support has been a constant question. Rumors of Washington’s expected firing swirled in July, but the Board of Visitors kept him on the job.

    George Mason faculty have also rallied around the embattled president, with dozens of professors, students and others protesting outside the July meeting. GMU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors applauded the senators’ letter on Tuesday.

    “We believe that Mr. Stimson has failed to fulfill his fiduciary duties and has repeatedly exceeded his proper authority as Rector of the Board of Visitors. His conflicting leadership role at the Heritage Foundation and his repeated attempts to overreach his authority threaten the foundation of Virginia’s largest public university, endangering its governance, stability, and future,” the GMU-AAUP Executive Committee wrote in an email to members.

    The local AAUP chapter struck a sharper tone than Virginia’s Senate leadership, alleging that Stimson has “usurped GMU President Gregory Washington’s authority to manage the university’s responses to federal investigations, contrary to the president’s delegated authority established in the [Board of Visitors’] Bylaws.”

    GMU-AAUP also echoed the call for Stimson to recuse himself from certain board duties.

    “If Rector Stimson cannot commit to this recusal, we join Senators Surovell, Lucas, and Locke in calling for his resignation as Rector to eliminate this conflict entirely,” the organization wrote. “The independence, integrity, and future of George Mason University depend on nothing less.”

    The group previously voted no confidence in the Board of Visitors in July.

    Source link

  • House Democrats push for Education Department closure transparency

    House Democrats push for Education Department closure transparency

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Democrats on the House Education and Workforce Committee introduced a resolution on Friday calling for transparency and information from the Trump administration and U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon on their efforts to shutter the U.S. Department of Education.
    • Specifically, the resolution requests unredacted copies of all documents from the administration that refer to the Education Department’s closure, including decisions around workforce reductions and those that could affect the agency’s ability to carry out education laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
    • The resolution will be taken to the House floor for a vote if the Education and Workforce Committee, led by Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mich., does not adopt it within 14 legislative days.

    Dive Insight:

    The resolution’s introduction comes one day after President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to close the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

    “Abolishing a federal agency requires an Act of Congress,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, in a Friday statement. “President Trump’s executive order has little regard for the irreparable harm it will cause to students, educators, our future workforce, and parents, who are already struggling.”

    After the Trump administration announced massive layoffs that cut the Education Department’s workforce in half earlier this month, the agency has denied that its key functions would be impacted.

    “Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” said McMahon in a Thursday statement praising the executive order.

    Additionally, Trump said before signing Thursday’s executive order that he plans to redistribute the department’s primary responsibilities to other parts of the government. That includes Pell Grants, Title I funding and resources for students with disabilities, he said. 

    The resolution introduced Friday appears to be part of a broader effort by Democrats in the House and Senate to challenge and seek more information over the slew of changes being made to the Education Department. 

    On March 17, leading Democrats on the congressional appropriations committees demanded details on the Education Department’s mass layoffs in a letter to the agency. The requested information included details on the number of staff terminated in each office and the expected savings from the staffing cuts.

    Source link

  • Democrats Blast McMahon Over Education Department Cuts

    Democrats Blast McMahon Over Education Department Cuts

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, ranking member of the Senate committee that oversees education policy, and 37 Democrats blasted Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a letter Monday, expressing “outrage” and arguing that the “reckless” cuts to her department’s staff last week will be “nothing short of devastating” for America’s students, schools and communities.

    “At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, when 60 percent of people live paycheck to paycheck, millions of Americans cannot afford higher education, and 40 percent of our nation’s 4th graders and 33 percent of 8th graders read below basic proficiency, it is a national disgrace that the Trump Administration is attempting to illegally abolish the Department of Education and thus, undermine a high-quality education for our students,” Sanders wrote.

    The letter noted that less than 24 hours after the reduction was announced, the Free Application for Federal Student Aid temporarily shut down; Education Department workers responsible for fixing it had reportedly been fired.

    Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann told the Associated Press that the layoffs didn’t affect employees working on the FAFSA or student loan servicing.

    “They are strategic, internal-facing cuts that will not directly impact students and families,” Biedermann said.

    But top Democratic appropriators, including Sen. Patty Murray of Washington State and ranking member of the House committee Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, disagreed. In their own letter Monday, they argued that the cuts would impact students’ daily lives and demanded to know how McMahon will uphold the law with a decimated staff.

    “Firing the people that ensure states, school districts, and institutions of higher education live up to their legal obligations is neither efficient nor accountable,” the lawmakers wrote. “The President’s disregard for appropriations and other laws and the need for stability and productivity in government creates an imperative for the Department to provide accurate, timely responses on its use and planned use of taxpayer resources provided by the laws passed by Congress.”

    Source link

  • Education Department’s doors blocked to House Democrats

    Education Department’s doors blocked to House Democrats

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    WASHINGTON — Democratic members of the House were blocked from entering the U.S. Department of Education’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., Friday after requesting a meeting with Acting Education Secretary Denise Carter to discuss their opposition to the Trump administration’s efforts to limit department programming.

    About 18 members of Congress walked up to the visitor’s entrance asking to enter after holding a press conference about their concerns. A person who was not wearing a security uniform came outside and told the group they were not allowed to enter. For the next 30 minutes, lawmakers pleaded to be let in the building, with some holding up their congressional business cards and arguing they had a right to enter the federal building as legislators who oversee federal agencies.

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security uniformed officers could be seen inside the glass doors. 

    “Each and everyone one of us have been through these doors,” said Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, standing near a sign reading “All Access Entrance.” “But, of course, as soon as we get word that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to shut down the Department of Education, suddenly, they don’t want to let members of Congress in that ask questions.”

    On Wednesday, 96 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Carter requesting an “urgent” meeting to discuss the Trump administration’s plans for what they say is to “illegally dismantle or drastically reduce” the Education Department. The department has received the letter, but no meeting has been scheduled as of Friday afternoon, according to the office of Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. 

    An Education Department spokesperson said in an email after the lawmakers’ visit that “The protest was organized by members of Congress who were exercising their First Amendment rights, which they are at liberty to do. They did not have any scheduled appointments, and the protest has since ended.”

    A group of people are standing in front of glass doors entering a building.

    Democratic members of the U.S. House are denied entry to the U.S. Department of Education’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 7, 2025. They were there to voice concerns about attempts to reduce or eliminate department programs.

    Kara Arundel/K-12 Dive

     

    Carter, who is an Education Department senior official overseeing federal student aid, is in the acting role as education secretary pending Senate approval of Trump’s choice for education secretary — Linda McMahon. McMahon’s confirmation hearing is scheduled for Feb. 13.

    Trump is expected to issue an executive order limiting the Education Department’s activities, although the timing of that order is unknown. Since being inaugurated Jan. 20, Trump has issued a series of executive orders geared toward education. They include restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, an expansion of school choice, and halting federal support for “​​gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.”

    Most recently, he ordered K-12 schools and colleges to prevent transgender girls and women from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Those that don’t comply could lose their federal funding.

    Trump has said his goal is to close the Education Department. However, that would require approval from at least 60 members of the Senate. Supporters of shrinking or eliminating the Education Department say there is too much federal bureaucracy. They also say states and districts should have more control over how to spend federal funds for schools. 

    During the Friday press conference in front of the Education Department, Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., a former national teacher of the year, asked what would happen to the civil rights of 49 million students, including 7 million students with disabilities, if the Education Department shuts down. She also asked about the $1.6 trillion in student financial aid the department manages.

    “If you want to have some true oversight of the department, I’m here for it, but what you will not do is shut down this department and deny access to all of those children who need it while we’re in Congress,” Hayes said. 

    Another former educator turned lawmaker, Rep. John Mannion, D-N.Y., said, “When we’re talking about dismantling the Department of Education, what we’re talking about is larger class sizes, those kids not getting those individualized services, the removal of athletics, art, science, music.” 

    “These people and I will not stand here silently as they steal taxpayer dollars from special education students,” Mannion said.

    Source link

  • Education Department’s doors blocked to House Democrats

    Education Department’s doors blocked to House Democrats

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    WASHINGTON — Democratic members of the House were blocked from entering the U.S. Department of Education’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., Friday after requesting a meeting with Acting Education Secretary Denise Carter to discuss their opposition to the Trump administration’s efforts to limit department programming.

    About 18 members of Congress walked up to the visitor’s entrance asking to enter after holding a press conference about their concerns. A person who was not wearing a security uniform came outside and told the group they were not allowed to enter. For the next 30 minutes, lawmakers pleaded to be let in the building, with some holding up their congressional business cards and arguing they had a right to enter the federal building as legislators who oversee federal agencies.

    U.S. Department of Homeland Security uniformed officers could be seen inside the glass doors. 

    “Each and everyone one of us have been through these doors,” said Rep. Greg Casar, D-Texas, standing near a sign reading “All Access Entrance.” “But, of course, as soon as we get word that Elon Musk and Donald Trump want to shut down the Department of Education, suddenly, they don’t want to let members of Congress in that ask questions.”

    On Wednesday, 96 Democratic members of Congress sent a letter to Carter requesting an “urgent” meeting to discuss the Trump administration’s plans for what they say is to “illegally dismantle or drastically reduce” the Education Department. The department has received the letter, but no meeting has been scheduled as of Friday afternoon, according to the office of Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif. 

    An Education Department spokesperson said in an email after the lawmakers’ visit that “The protest was organized by members of Congress who were exercising their First Amendment rights, which they are at liberty to do. They did not have any scheduled appointments, and the protest has since ended.”

    A group of people are standing in front of glass doors entering a building.

    Democratic members of the U.S. House are denied entry to the Education Department’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 7, 2025. They were there to voice concerns about attempts to reduce or eliminate department programs.

    Kara Arundel/K-12 Dive

     

    Carter, who is an Education Department senior official overseeing federal student aid, is in the acting role as education secretary pending Senate approval of Trump’s choice for education secretary — Linda McMahon. McMahon’s confirmation hearing is scheduled for Feb. 13.

    Trump is expected to issue an executive order limiting the Education Department’s activities, although the timing of that order is unknown. Since being inaugurated Jan. 20, Trump has issued a series of executive orders geared toward education. They include restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, an expansion of school choice, and halting federal support for “​​gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.”

    Most recently, he ordered K-12 schools and colleges to prevent transgender girls and women from participating on sports teams that align with their gender identity. Those that don’t comply could lose their federal funding.

    Trump has said his goal is to close the Education Department. However, that would require approval from at least 60 members of the Senate. Supporters of shrinking or eliminating the Education Department say there is too much federal bureaucracy. They also say states and districts should have more control over how to spend federal funds for schools. 

    During the Friday press conference in front of the Education Department, Rep. Jahana Hayes, D-Conn., a former national teacher of the year, asked what would happen to the civil rights of 49 million students, including 7 million students with disabilities, if the Education Department shuts down. She also asked about the $1.6 trillion in student financial aid the department manages.

    “If you want to have some true oversight of the department, I’m here for it, but what you will not do is shut down this department and deny access to all of those children who need it while we’re in Congress,” Hayes said. 

    Another former educator turned lawmaker, Rep. John Mannion, D-N.Y., said, “When we’re talking about dismantling the Department of Education, what we’re talking about is larger class sizes, those kids not getting those individualized services, the removal of athletics, art, science, music.” 

    “These people and I will not stand here silently as they steal taxpayer dollars from special education students,” Mannion said.

    Source link

  • “Are Working Class Voters Done with Democrats?” (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Stidies)

    “Are Working Class Voters Done with Democrats?” (CUNY School of Labor and Urban Stidies)

    What’s at Stake for Labor:

    Project 2025 and the Department of Government Efficiency 

     

     

    Wednesday, February 5

    7:00pm – 8:30pm

     

    Virtual event via Zoom webinar. 

     

    Register:  

    slucuny.swoogo.com/5February2025

     

    

    Featured Speakers: 

    James Goodwin – Policy Director, Center for Progressive Reform

    Diana Reddy – Assistant Professor, UC Berkeley Law

    Arjun Singh – Senior Podcast Producer, The Lever

    Moderated by Samir Sonti – Assistant Professor, CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies.

     

    What are the real costs to bear on workers–especially civil service and public sector workers – with Project 2025 and the establishment of Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency? What strategies can labor employ to counter this attack on working people and unions? How can looking back at previous far right policy projects help prepare us in our fight to protect workers? Join us to hear from law & policy experts and journalists as they discuss these urgent questions.

    Source link