July 22, 2025 • 32 mins
On this episode of "The Federalist Radio Hour," Beth Akers, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, joins Federalist Senior Elections Correspondent Matt Kittle to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's decision weighing in on the Trump administration's plans to gut the Department of Education. Akers and Kittle also analyze what it would take to fully dismantle or at least check the taxpayer-funded education arm of the federal bureaucracy.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:18):
And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
(00:40):
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is education expert Beth Acres, Senior Fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute. The US Supreme Court earlier
this week lifted a lower court injunction against the Trump
Administration's efforts to dismantle Department of Education. The decision allows
(01:02):
the administration to proceed for now with mass firings of
a forty five year old agency. At a forty five
year old agency that has had a difficult time justifying
its existence. Beth joins us with a little perspective on
this decision and where we go from here. Thank you
so much for joining us on the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Oh you're welcome. I'm glad to be with you today.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
You bet, I mean this was it felt like a
long time coming for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
There are a number of things involved in this decision
that I think that are important. But first of all,
let's begin with what this decision ultimately gives the executive
branch the right to do. I suppose.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Yeah, So what it allows the administration to do is
basically exactly what it tried to do, which is to
do a really tremendous reduction in force at the Department
of Education, but you know, fall short of allowing them
to you know, quote unquote dismantle or eliminate the department.
It seems like pretty much everyone is an agreement administration,
(02:11):
you know, congressional lawmakers, Supreme Court that in order to
eliminate that department, we would need legislation, and the administration
recognizes that fact. But also, you know, has been granted
the explicit authority by this decision to go ahead and
make these reductions in force, which we know are sort
of a complimentary strategy to a future closure of the department.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yeah, do you see that in the future of the
Department of Education, Because that's ultimately for a lot of
Americans where they would like to see this go. Ultimately,
this forty five year old was established by President Jimmy Carter. Yeah,
in nineteen seventy nine. There have been concerns about this
(02:58):
agency throughout it's forty five years. Do you see the
Department of Education ultimately being a thing of the past.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, you know, it's a little funny because whether or
not the Department.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Closes, you know, in name right, as an.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Entity, it probably matters less than how the bureaucracy is structured.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
So I do not see.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Lawmakers in Congress really jumping at the idea of formerly
formally closing the Department of Education. And so I don't think,
you know, we will see that dream of the right
kind of fulfilled explicitly. But I will say, you know,
in practice, it may be that the huge reductions in
(03:49):
force and sort of some of the reassignment of these
policy activities to other agencies may you know, effectively diminish
the role of the federal Department of Education to the
extent that it might as well not be there. And
then I guess, of course that might mean lawmakers would
be more more interested in the idea, But it feels
(04:11):
more like a political liability for lawmakers to actually go
ahead and formally make that change, you know, with not
a tremendous you know, potential political advantage at this point
kind of like I'd say, like the noise has been made,
like the victory has been one in terms of rhetoric,
and then you know, the in effect, like the real
(04:33):
practice of running federal education policy, both K twelve and
Higher ED will be changed by the way that these
agencies are staffed, by the way that the policy infrastructure
holds these programs, and those you know changes are all
within the authority of the current administration and future administration.
(04:56):
So you know, in effect, I think we'll see a
practical closure of the Department, if.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Not in name.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
It's interesting to me that conservatives Republicans have been talking
about closing the Department of Education for a long time,
in some cases as long as it's been in existence.
But there's been a growing chorus, of course of these
I remember then Texas Governor Rick Perry struggling to remember
during a debate the three agencies that he would close.
(05:29):
I think I can't remember now if he struggled with
the Department of Education, but that's what he was talking
about during the two thousand and twelve election cycle. But
try as they might. And again this is you know,
obviously a congressional matter as well. We haven't seen any
(05:50):
movement on that front until Trump two point zero. Why,
I think I understand in large part why that is
because you have had Democrat governors excuse been Democrat president
since that time, in Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They
are absolutely beholden by the you know, the eduocrats and
(06:14):
the unions. But why hasn't there been more of a
forceful move from Republicans over the years to at least
attempt to rein in the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Yeah, good question.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I mean, I think there is a natural constituency for
this kind of small government constrained federal role. I mean
maybe a lot of your listeners are, you know, in
that genre of thinkers, But I just don't think like
on the national stage that's like a really big winning message,
at least.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Not until now.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I mean a lot of the movement that we're seeing
a policy right now is in the higher ED space.
And what we've seen is that public sentiment has shifted,
you know, in the negative on higher ED in recent years.
It seems like Americans are much more skeptical of what
higher ED is doing, and I think that's empowered a
lot of conservative lawmakers, both on the administration side and
(07:13):
also some of the big changes we've seen.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
With the reconciliation legislation.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
So yeah, I mean these are long held ideals by people.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Who kind of, you know, live and breed these values.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Of small government, but they have been kind of empowered,
i'd say, by this political moment where Americans have this
dissatisfaction with education kind of at a scale.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Where it has bubbled up to being a you.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Know, portfolio like a campaign portfolio issue for federal lawmakers,
which is really the first time I've seen.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
That in my career.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Do you think Americans are at that point largely because
of three letters D E I actually equity and inclusion,
and that of course has been infused at higher education
for a long time. Yeah, and it certainly is rampant
in public education.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
I would say yes, and I'll zoom out a little bit.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I think there are two threads that are taking Americans
down this road. One is, you know, what I would
more broadly describe as the cultural issues facing college campuses,
and I think DEI is a part of that that
was clearly a like a winning political message for the
Trump administration in gaining a second term.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
But also I think, you know, following the news of the.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Hamas attacks on Israel, I think there was a demonstration
of a behavior on college campus that kind of highlighted
for Americans that you know, like we had been talking
for a long time about like this progressive like ownership
of higher ed and you know, this lack of opportunity
for like real free speech on college campuses. But I
think it was a bit theoretical, and I think, you know,
(09:03):
the demonstrations from students, like the literal demonstrations, but also
the behavior demonstrated something that I think most Americans don't
feel comfortable with. And so I think that highlighted the
cultural issues facing college campuses in a new way.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
It elevated that issues.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
For Americans, you know, And I think that goes hand
in hand with the conversations around DEI And I'm an economist,
so source I of course I see the dollars and
cents of every issue. I think another reason for this
dissatisfaction is that, you know, we've pushed Americans into this
idea that a college degree is the only pathway to
(09:45):
the American dream. And I think that we have done
a disservice to Americans by selling them this like false
golden ticket to prosperity, and they're kind of onto us,
you know, it's like, Okay, wait a minute. You know,
you prompt I get this bachelor's degree and I'm now
part of this upper class of Americans. But in practice
that doesn't always happen, and I think Americans have become
(10:08):
more skeptical of this promise that they've been sold, and
Higher ED plays like a really central role in that promise. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
I think that's a great point, and this opinion, this
decision from the Supreme Court gets into a big part
of that. We'll talk about that coming up in just
a moment. But also as we look at the dollars
and sense of it all, we saw the federal government
(10:37):
push in hundreds of billions of dollars during COVID into education,
and we saw the results of that, and I think
the Department of Education was on the front line of
that failure. Do you think that that has had an
impact in the minds of Americans.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I think it's possible, but to be honest, I don't.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I think most Americans, you know, have the luxury of
understanding like the nuance of the bureaucracies of the federal government.
You know, like I think there's a sense the federal
government is doing too much and they're not doing the
right things here.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
And whether that comes from an agency that's.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Called Department of Education or it's coming from Health and
Human Services, you know, I think.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
We're very cut up, you know, being part.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Of this Washington bubble with you know, the explicit idea
of a closure of a particular department. But I think
most Americans it's more about the spirit of this change,
which is capturing you know, I don't like what's happening,
you know, and something needs to change, and this feels
like a symbol of that sentiment. And I think that's
(11:44):
what that's what Americans are excited about more so than
you know, this explicit you know, reorganization strategy for the bureaucracy.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Yeah. Yeah, it does get in the weeds for Americans,
I'm sure, But we're talking about a bloated federal government
and general that's been a conversation that we've had for
a long time, and I think the Department of Government
Efficiency pushed that to the forefront. Whatever side you're on
in that battle, It's clear that President Trump, in Trump
(12:17):
two point zero, would like to see the end of
the Department of Education. His executive order earlier this year
was I'll read part of it, get your response to it.
The experiment of controlling American education through federal programs and
dollars and the unaccountable bureaucracy those programs and dollars support
has plainly failed our children, our teachers, and our families.
(12:43):
What do you think of that sentiment as the administration
continues to move to drastically cut and draw back the
Department of Education.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
You know, I do think it's fair to say that
the department, the federal Department of Education, has enabled more
meddling in what should be a state issue, which is
K twelve education, than would you know, be allowed otherwise.
So I do think that, you know, as much as
I'm saying this is kind of an arbitrary you know,
(13:16):
these these boundaries of one agency to the next are
not that important. I do think that the existence of
a Department of Education has allowed for almost like this
internal lobbying structure that has caused federal policy to be,
you know, excessively heavy handed on the K twelve side.
(13:38):
And then you know, like practically when it comes to
the Higher ED side, you know, Higher ED does have
some you know, pretty important federal programming, but it is
not programming that fits very well within the current conception
of what the Department of Education is, which are you know,
education professionals, you know, because as the federal intervention at
(14:01):
the Higher ED level is really a financial intervention. And
you know, even people like myself who I don't really
identify it as like a very super strong small government person,
but you know, as a conservative, you know, have had
the feeling for a long time that, you know.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Whether we close the torrent education or not.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
I'd love to see the federal financial aid programs managed
by a different agency where the staffing is more appropriate
to the function that they're actually taking on.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
So I mean, I think there's you know, the.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Idea, like the pure ideological motive of you know, smaller
government eliminating that internal influence to affect policy and maybe
enabling the overreach of federal policy making, but also just
the practical I mean this is, you know, an.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Inappropriately staffed agency.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
For the task at hand, for even for those places
where I think even a lot of Republicans and conservative thinkers.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Feel like there is a federal role.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
So, you know, the as much as this has become
political rhetoric for you know, the current administration, I mean
there's some really sound reasons, even you know, how to
moxt more moderate thinkers that this is, you know, as
I've written before, not a crazy idea at all.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
The Federal Reserve Offices in DC are getting an extreme
Soviet makeover. The Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between
politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
The Federal Reserve Offices are getting a two point five
billion dollar renovation. For perspective, Jerry Jones built Cowboys Stadium
for one point one five billion. Whether it's happening in
(15:44):
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Be informed.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
Check out the Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Our guest today is Beth Aker, Senior Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute. We're talking about the US Supreme Court's
decision recently to lift the Lower court injunction against the
Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. Massive
job cuts there, and a lot of Americans believe rightly.
(16:20):
So I want to talk about the legal side of
this for a moment, if you don't mind. This was
an injunction from the lower court system. Once again, the
lower courts have had a very difficult time, it seems
to me, with executive branch power. And the question comes up,
(16:43):
and it's a good one every time, if previous presidents,
and in this case, if President Joe Biden and President
Barack Obama can do all these things to expand the
Department of Education, why can't a Republican president in this
President Donald Trump do what he wants in his agenda
(17:05):
with his electoral mandate to reduce the footprint of the
Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
M hmm, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I mean, I think that's a very fair observation, and
I think the message from the court was very clear
and saying that that's exactly what this administration is allowed
to do as long as they stay short of, you know,
what is required by legislation, they absolutely have the authority
(17:34):
to do that. And you know, very clearly there's a
lot of Democrats that have angs over the fact that
this administration is using a lot of the same authorities
that they use that they now perceive as an overreach.
But you know, during the Biden administration, seemed like an
appropriate way to exert their influence over these sectors. So,
(17:57):
I mean, politics is always rife with hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
And I think this is a good example of that.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, I mean that is really the most telling point
here when we're looking at these lower court decisions and
these nationwide injunctions, which the Supreme Court one of the
last decisions of the most recent term, said, listen, lower courts,
you have to understand that nationwide injunctions from district courts
(18:27):
are not the practice of this federal court system. On
rare occasions you can do that. We also have district
courts that have decided that Congress no longer has the
power of the first strings when we're talking about the
issues of a funding planned parenthood, for instance. So was
(18:47):
this any surprise that we would get this kind of opposition,
certainly from Biden and Obama appointed federal judges.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
I mean, I think we can say it's pointing that
you know, the judiciary has, you know, this politicized existence
and that you know, we cannot count on judges to
weigh in on these issues in a non politicized manner.
But I don't think it was particularly surprising. And you know,
(19:20):
I'd like to think that conservative judges wouldn't do the
same in reverse, but you know, until that's tested, I'm
not sure i'd say confidently that we wouldn't see the
same in reverse.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I think that's.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Quite unfortunately the nature of our political infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Well, let's take a look at the Department of Education
as mega lender. You talked about where we stand now
in forty five years, thanks to legislation, thanks to Congress,
thanks to executive orders, this Department of Education has been
an entity onto itself, a country unto itself in the
(19:59):
amount of money that goes through college borrowing. You had
the Biden fix attempt, which certainly was unconstitutional, which was
to write off these loans, you know, on the backs
of American taxpayers, many of them who did not pay
(20:20):
for a college education, and felt, you know, that they
were built by this. But what can the Trump administration,
what is it doing? What can the Trump administration and
Congress do to change this system which has many, many
problems in it.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
It does have many, many problems, but I will say
I'm sort of sitting in an optimistic moment right now
because a lot of the changes I've been advocating for
for a long time in this program were successfully made
through the Reconciliation legislation. So we saw a few things happen.
And you know, when President Biden failed in canceling student
(21:04):
debt because the court stood up and said it was illegal,
not to mention, unfair, to just wipe away the student.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Debt of people who had benefited from.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
College, he basically tried another, like I think they called
it Plan B even explicitly, and it was basically to
create a repayment plan for borrowers that you kind of
just didn't make them repay their loans. And so we're
still waiting for the courts to weigh in on, you know,
whether that will be allowed to stand. I think most
people are in agreement that this is something that will
(21:34):
be overturned as well.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
So you know what the what the.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Legislation does is puts in place of reasonable repayment plans
for borrowers so that if you're somebody went off to college,
you know saw the benefit. You know you you paid
a price up front, but you borrowed to do that,
and then you went off and got a great job,
and you know, are a good job and you're able
to afford to repay taxpayers the money that you borrowed
from them.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You will be asked to do that.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
And so, you know, instead of this kind of crazy
backdoor forgiveness plan that President Biden tried to put in
place and sort of half succeeded in getting, you know,
put in place, we have really a reasonable or payment structure.
But that also provides some protection for borrowers who you know,
do find themselves kind of in trouble and you know,
things happen people. We rely on higher education to be
(22:22):
a mechanism, really the mechanism for social mobility for the
US economy, and so it kind of really needs to work,
you know, and like sometimes college doesn't work, and sometimes
it works. You know, it doesn't work for no fault
of the individual borrower.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
And so the new.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Legislation leaves in place these protections to say, if you're
someone who paid for college, it didn't work for you.
Maybe your college was lousy, they closed, or your profession
you know, was replaced by AI or something you know,
your loans will be forgiven ultimately after you show you
know you've had sufficient hard ship and.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Repaying those loans. But those are a good changes.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
I mean that brings us back to the whole point,
which is that Americans are willing to lend money to
people to make these investments that for the most part
are good in their education and their skill development, so
that they can contribute to the workforce as long as
they pay those dollars back. And so legislation brings us
back to that model, which is actually a lending model,
(23:21):
and at the same time, it puts institutions more on
the hook. So you know, we're going to stop making
loans to programs of study that have consistently really poor
earnings outcomes for their graduates. And the bar is low,
but previously there was no bar, so this is a
huge step forward. Basically, it says that as a program
(23:41):
of study, like you're the major at every major, at
every accredited you know, funded institution, has to prove that
their graduates are out earning the median earner with a
high school diploma in that state.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So low bar, but better than no bar.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
And basically we're going to stop making a lot of
those loans that were never you know, should never have
been made in the first place because the borrowers had
no shot in being able to pay back.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
So the combo of.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Those things, I think really sets us in the right
direction in a big way on student lending, following an
era where you know, the proposals that were coming from
the left were really just off the wall.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Pether, are you telling me that Lithuanian folk art isn't
a master's stroke in terms of a professional road that's
going to have a huge payoff, or perhaps trans Icelandic poetry?
Are you saying Are you saying that those areas of
(24:45):
study won't lead to a profitable human being?
Speaker 3 (24:49):
It turns out empirically speaking, no. And what I will
say in defense of those fields, I would love for
people who have the resources to pay for that themselves
to still be able to study those things. That's what's
great about America. But I, as a taxpayer, do not
want to be funding it, nor do I want other
taxpayers to be on the hook to pay when these
(25:10):
people cannot repay their loans. And that is the direction
that this legislation takes us, which is a great thing.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Well, I guess that leads to my next question. How
culpable is the Department of Education in the high, high
cost some and oftentimes the unattainable cost of higher education
in America today?
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Well, I say partly, and I put some of the
blame on Congress too, because you know, as we've expanded
eligibility for federal lending and increased Pelgram eligibility, that has
translated to increasing costs. But the other thing, and those
changes have come from the Congress side, But the things
that have changed from the administrative side are that we
(25:57):
have introduced these programs that mean that you know, that
borrowers can make reduce payments in times when they have
low income, and that results in them often not paying
back their loans at all. And that actually happens quite
often for you know, more well off borrowers than you
would like to think. That translates almost directly to increased costs.
I mean, we even had a case of Georgetown Law
(26:20):
School was basically, you know, advising their students on the
front end, like, hey, you should keep borrowing because you're
not gonna have to pay it back, you know, once
you get to this amount because of this federal program
I mean, they got kind of exposed in the media
and how to change their ways. But you know, the
incentives were very apparent institutions, which is, your students.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Don't have to pay this price.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
They're never going to pay back their loans, so you
might as well charge whatever you want. And that was,
you know, especially true for graduate and professional schools, less
true for undergrad But I would say we've definitely had
a federal policy regime that contributes substantially to the inflation
that we've seen.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Trump notes the unaccountable bureaucracy. I think if anything is
true about the Department of Education, it is that it
has so many occasions been unaccountable. I think about a
series of investigative reports I did back around twenty fourteen
twenty fifteen in the Obama era, where these dear Colleague
(27:24):
letters started hitting everywhere, and I remember the Milwaukee parental
choice school system was subject to between the Department of
Education and the Department of Justice, a series of investigations
and harassment simply because they existed. And I wonder if
(27:48):
the changes that Trump is making, what he can do
on the executive end, will end that kind of power
trip from the Department and of education.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Yeah, I mean, I'm less an expert on the K
twelve side, but you know, I think one criticism of
the current administration that is fair is that they have
used similar tactics themselves. I mean, even in addressing the
real issues that are happening at some of the elite
college campuses, you know, in the way that the administration
has communicated and dealt with Harvard and Columbia. I mean,
(28:23):
there are real issues there to address, but I do
think the you know, kind of overreach or violation of
process that we saw the administration utilizing to address those
issues kind of felt too similar to me to the
overreach that we've seen in democratic administrations, and so I'd
love to see us move away from that kind of
(28:45):
heavy handed approach of federal involvement at all.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
I get what you're saying, but I think Americans have
really gotten to the point where they are absolutely sick
of institutions of higher education promoting you know, really completely
anti American forms of indocrination is what it is.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Yep, yep.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
And you know a lot of my close friends, of course,
are you know, involved in these these movements, and then
that's exactly what they say as you say, Beth, Yeah,
like would love to just follow standard processes, not make
like a big fuss.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Out of all this.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
But we have tried that, you know, year after year,
administration after administration, we have tried to do things in
kind of like a less boisterous way, and that has
not worked in affecting change.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
And so that you know, that is the idea. I
get it. I'm sympathetic to that as well.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
All right, final question for you. I appreciate the generosity
of your time today, and that is this, where does
higher education go from here? Where do you see higher
education ten years down the line into the next several decades.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I think that higher education is facing or reckoning at
the moment. And it's not a reckoning caused by lawmakers
or federal or state interventions. It's reckoning that Americans are
questioning what is higher ed, what's it worth?
Speaker 2 (30:14):
And what's it doing for me?
Speaker 3 (30:15):
And as much as the government pays for the continued
existence of this sector, they need Americans to be bought in.
And I think, and I maybe this is hopeful more
than it is a prediction. I hope that we will
see institutions responding to the fact that Americans want programs
(30:37):
to be you know, creating, focus on creating opportunity and
economic financial opportunity for their students more than you know,
this sort of politicized indoctrination of ideas or you know,
the notion of developing citizens in one light or another.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
You know.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
I hope we can move away from that, and I
think the demand for Americans will push institutions in the direction.
Whether or not the policy or legal infrastructure around higher
ED will enable them to be innovative enough to really
move quickly, I don't know, but I'm hopeful that we'll
see some changes.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
In that direction.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I hope they's sustaining those changes as well, because we've
certainly experienced a good deal of whiplash over the years
in terms of politics and education. Ultimately, the idea should
be to provide the best education possible. There are a
lot of moving parts and players in that, but that
(31:38):
should be without the sort of indoctrination we've seen campuses
across the country.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Thanks to my guest today, Beth Akers, senior fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute, you've been listening to another edition
of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittles, Senior Elections
correspondent at The Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.
And we are back with another edition of the Federalist
Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the
Federalist and your experienced Shirpa on today's quest for knowledge.
As always, you can email the show at radio at
the Federalist dot com, follow us on x at FDR LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcast, and
(00:40):
of course to the premium version of our website as well.
Our guest today is education expert Beth Acres, Senior Fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute. The US Supreme Court earlier
this week lifted a lower court injunction against the Trump
Administration's efforts to dismantle Department of Education. The decision allows
(01:02):
the administration to proceed for now with mass firings of
a forty five year old agency. At a forty five
year old agency that has had a difficult time justifying
its existence. Beth joins us with a little perspective on
this decision and where we go from here. Thank you
so much for joining us on the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
Oh you're welcome. I'm glad to be with you today.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
You bet, I mean this was it felt like a
long time coming for the Supreme Court to weigh in.
There are a number of things involved in this decision
that I think that are important. But first of all,
let's begin with what this decision ultimately gives the executive
branch the right to do. I suppose.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
Yeah, So what it allows the administration to do is
basically exactly what it tried to do, which is to
do a really tremendous reduction in force at the Department
of Education, but you know, fall short of allowing them
to you know, quote unquote dismantle or eliminate the department.
It seems like pretty much everyone is an agreement administration,
(02:11):
you know, congressional lawmakers, Supreme Court that in order to
eliminate that department, we would need legislation, and the administration
recognizes that fact. But also, you know, has been granted
the explicit authority by this decision to go ahead and
make these reductions in force, which we know are sort
of a complimentary strategy to a future closure of the department.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Yeah, do you see that in the future of the
Department of Education, Because that's ultimately for a lot of
Americans where they would like to see this go. Ultimately,
this forty five year old was established by President Jimmy Carter. Yeah,
in nineteen seventy nine. There have been concerns about this
(02:58):
agency throughout it's forty five years. Do you see the
Department of Education ultimately being a thing of the past.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Well, you know, it's a little funny because whether or
not the Department.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Closes, you know, in name right, as an.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
Entity, it probably matters less than how the bureaucracy is structured.
Speaker 2 (03:23):
So I do not see.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Lawmakers in Congress really jumping at the idea of formerly
formally closing the Department of Education. And so I don't think,
you know, we will see that dream of the right
kind of fulfilled explicitly. But I will say, you know,
in practice, it may be that the huge reductions in
(03:49):
force and sort of some of the reassignment of these
policy activities to other agencies may you know, effectively diminish
the role of the federal Department of Education to the
extent that it might as well not be there. And
then I guess, of course that might mean lawmakers would
be more more interested in the idea, But it feels
(04:11):
more like a political liability for lawmakers to actually go
ahead and formally make that change, you know, with not
a tremendous you know, potential political advantage at this point
kind of like I'd say, like the noise has been made,
like the victory has been one in terms of rhetoric,
and then you know, the in effect, like the real
(04:33):
practice of running federal education policy, both K twelve and
Higher ED will be changed by the way that these
agencies are staffed, by the way that the policy infrastructure
holds these programs, and those you know changes are all
within the authority of the current administration and future administration.
(04:56):
So you know, in effect, I think we'll see a
practical closure of the Department, if.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Not in name.
Speaker 1 (05:05):
It's interesting to me that conservatives Republicans have been talking
about closing the Department of Education for a long time,
in some cases as long as it's been in existence.
But there's been a growing chorus, of course of these
I remember then Texas Governor Rick Perry struggling to remember
during a debate the three agencies that he would close.
(05:29):
I think I can't remember now if he struggled with
the Department of Education, but that's what he was talking
about during the two thousand and twelve election cycle. But
try as they might. And again this is you know,
obviously a congressional matter as well. We haven't seen any
(05:50):
movement on that front until Trump two point zero. Why,
I think I understand in large part why that is
because you have had Democrat governors excuse been Democrat president
since that time, in Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They
are absolutely beholden by the you know, the eduocrats and
(06:14):
the unions. But why hasn't there been more of a
forceful move from Republicans over the years to at least
attempt to rein in the Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Yeah, good question.
Speaker 3 (06:30):
I mean, I think there is a natural constituency for
this kind of small government constrained federal role. I mean
maybe a lot of your listeners are, you know, in
that genre of thinkers, But I just don't think like
on the national stage that's like a really big winning message,
at least.
Speaker 2 (06:49):
Not until now.
Speaker 3 (06:51):
I mean a lot of the movement that we're seeing
a policy right now is in the higher ED space.
And what we've seen is that public sentiment has shifted,
you know, in the negative on higher ED in recent years.
It seems like Americans are much more skeptical of what
higher ED is doing, and I think that's empowered a
lot of conservative lawmakers, both on the administration side and
(07:13):
also some of the big changes we've seen.
Speaker 2 (07:16):
With the reconciliation legislation.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
So yeah, I mean these are long held ideals by people.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Who kind of, you know, live and breed these values.
Speaker 3 (07:26):
Of small government, but they have been kind of empowered,
i'd say, by this political moment where Americans have this
dissatisfaction with education kind of at a scale.
Speaker 2 (07:38):
Where it has bubbled up to being a you.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Know, portfolio like a campaign portfolio issue for federal lawmakers,
which is really the first time I've seen.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
That in my career.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Do you think Americans are at that point largely because
of three letters D E I actually equity and inclusion,
and that of course has been infused at higher education
for a long time. Yeah, and it certainly is rampant
in public education.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
I would say yes, and I'll zoom out a little bit.
Speaker 3 (08:15):
I think there are two threads that are taking Americans
down this road. One is, you know, what I would
more broadly describe as the cultural issues facing college campuses,
and I think DEI is a part of that that
was clearly a like a winning political message for the
Trump administration in gaining a second term.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
But also I think, you know, following the news of the.
Speaker 3 (08:40):
Hamas attacks on Israel, I think there was a demonstration
of a behavior on college campus that kind of highlighted
for Americans that you know, like we had been talking
for a long time about like this progressive like ownership
of higher ed and you know, this lack of opportunity
for like real free speech on college campuses. But I
think it was a bit theoretical, and I think, you know,
(09:03):
the demonstrations from students, like the literal demonstrations, but also
the behavior demonstrated something that I think most Americans don't
feel comfortable with. And so I think that highlighted the
cultural issues facing college campuses in a new way.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
It elevated that issues.
Speaker 3 (09:22):
For Americans, you know, And I think that goes hand
in hand with the conversations around DEI And I'm an economist,
so source I of course I see the dollars and
cents of every issue. I think another reason for this
dissatisfaction is that, you know, we've pushed Americans into this
idea that a college degree is the only pathway to
(09:45):
the American dream. And I think that we have done
a disservice to Americans by selling them this like false
golden ticket to prosperity, and they're kind of onto us,
you know, it's like, Okay, wait a minute. You know,
you prompt I get this bachelor's degree and I'm now
part of this upper class of Americans. But in practice
that doesn't always happen, and I think Americans have become
(10:08):
more skeptical of this promise that they've been sold, and
Higher ED plays like a really central role in that promise. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (10:17):
I think that's a great point, and this opinion, this
decision from the Supreme Court gets into a big part
of that. We'll talk about that coming up in just
a moment. But also as we look at the dollars
and sense of it all, we saw the federal government
(10:37):
push in hundreds of billions of dollars during COVID into education,
and we saw the results of that, and I think
the Department of Education was on the front line of
that failure. Do you think that that has had an
impact in the minds of Americans.
Speaker 2 (10:57):
I think it's possible, but to be honest, I don't.
Speaker 3 (11:00):
I think most Americans, you know, have the luxury of
understanding like the nuance of the bureaucracies of the federal government.
You know, like I think there's a sense the federal
government is doing too much and they're not doing the
right things here.
Speaker 2 (11:13):
And whether that comes from an agency that's.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Called Department of Education or it's coming from Health and
Human Services, you know, I think.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
We're very cut up, you know, being part.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
Of this Washington bubble with you know, the explicit idea
of a closure of a particular department. But I think
most Americans it's more about the spirit of this change,
which is capturing you know, I don't like what's happening,
you know, and something needs to change, and this feels
like a symbol of that sentiment. And I think that's
(11:44):
what that's what Americans are excited about more so than
you know, this explicit you know, reorganization strategy for the bureaucracy.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Yeah. Yeah, it does get in the weeds for Americans,
I'm sure, But we're talking about a bloated federal government
and general that's been a conversation that we've had for
a long time, and I think the Department of Government
Efficiency pushed that to the forefront. Whatever side you're on
in that battle, It's clear that President Trump, in Trump
(12:17):
two point zero, would like to see the end of
the Department of Education. His executive order earlier this year
was I'll read part of it, get your response to it.
The experiment of controlling American education through federal programs and
dollars and the unaccountable bureaucracy those programs and dollars support
has plainly failed our children, our teachers, and our families.
(12:43):
What do you think of that sentiment as the administration
continues to move to drastically cut and draw back the
Department of Education.
Speaker 3 (12:55):
You know, I do think it's fair to say that
the department, the federal Department of Education, has enabled more
meddling in what should be a state issue, which is
K twelve education, than would you know, be allowed otherwise.
So I do think that, you know, as much as
I'm saying this is kind of an arbitrary you know,
(13:16):
these these boundaries of one agency to the next are
not that important. I do think that the existence of
a Department of Education has allowed for almost like this
internal lobbying structure that has caused federal policy to be,
you know, excessively heavy handed on the K twelve side.
(13:38):
And then you know, like practically when it comes to
the Higher ED side, you know, Higher ED does have
some you know, pretty important federal programming, but it is
not programming that fits very well within the current conception
of what the Department of Education is, which are you know,
education professionals, you know, because as the federal intervention at
(14:01):
the Higher ED level is really a financial intervention. And
you know, even people like myself who I don't really
identify it as like a very super strong small government person,
but you know, as a conservative, you know, have had
the feeling for a long time that, you know.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Whether we close the torrent education or not.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
I'd love to see the federal financial aid programs managed
by a different agency where the staffing is more appropriate
to the function that they're actually taking on.
Speaker 2 (14:31):
So I mean, I think there's you know, the.
Speaker 3 (14:33):
Idea, like the pure ideological motive of you know, smaller
government eliminating that internal influence to affect policy and maybe
enabling the overreach of federal policy making, but also just
the practical I mean this is, you know, an.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Inappropriately staffed agency.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
For the task at hand, for even for those places
where I think even a lot of Republicans and conservative thinkers.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
Feel like there is a federal role.
Speaker 3 (15:02):
So, you know, the as much as this has become
political rhetoric for you know, the current administration, I mean
there's some really sound reasons, even you know, how to
moxt more moderate thinkers that this is, you know, as
I've written before, not a crazy idea at all.
Speaker 4 (15:22):
The Federal Reserve Offices in DC are getting an extreme
Soviet makeover. The Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski. Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between
politics and the economy and how it affects your wallet.
The Federal Reserve Offices are getting a two point five
billion dollar renovation. For perspective, Jerry Jones built Cowboys Stadium
for one point one five billion. Whether it's happening in
(15:44):
DC or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Be informed.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
Check out the Watched Out on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (15:56):
Our guest today is Beth Aker, Senior Fellow at the
American Enterprise Institute. We're talking about the US Supreme Court's
decision recently to lift the Lower court injunction against the
Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. Massive
job cuts there, and a lot of Americans believe rightly.
(16:20):
So I want to talk about the legal side of
this for a moment, if you don't mind. This was
an injunction from the lower court system. Once again, the
lower courts have had a very difficult time, it seems
to me, with executive branch power. And the question comes up,
(16:43):
and it's a good one every time, if previous presidents,
and in this case, if President Joe Biden and President
Barack Obama can do all these things to expand the
Department of Education, why can't a Republican president in this
President Donald Trump do what he wants in his agenda
(17:05):
with his electoral mandate to reduce the footprint of the
Department of Education.
Speaker 2 (17:13):
M hmm, Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I mean, I think that's a very fair observation, and
I think the message from the court was very clear
and saying that that's exactly what this administration is allowed
to do as long as they stay short of, you know,
what is required by legislation, they absolutely have the authority
(17:34):
to do that. And you know, very clearly there's a
lot of Democrats that have angs over the fact that
this administration is using a lot of the same authorities
that they use that they now perceive as an overreach.
But you know, during the Biden administration, seemed like an
appropriate way to exert their influence over these sectors. So,
(17:57):
I mean, politics is always rife with hypocrisy.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
And I think this is a good example of that.
Speaker 1 (18:03):
Yeah, I mean that is really the most telling point
here when we're looking at these lower court decisions and
these nationwide injunctions, which the Supreme Court one of the
last decisions of the most recent term, said, listen, lower courts,
you have to understand that nationwide injunctions from district courts
(18:27):
are not the practice of this federal court system. On
rare occasions you can do that. We also have district
courts that have decided that Congress no longer has the
power of the first strings when we're talking about the
issues of a funding planned parenthood, for instance. So was
(18:47):
this any surprise that we would get this kind of opposition,
certainly from Biden and Obama appointed federal judges.
Speaker 3 (18:58):
I mean, I think we can say it's pointing that
you know, the judiciary has, you know, this politicized existence
and that you know, we cannot count on judges to
weigh in on these issues in a non politicized manner.
But I don't think it was particularly surprising. And you know,
(19:20):
I'd like to think that conservative judges wouldn't do the
same in reverse, but you know, until that's tested, I'm
not sure i'd say confidently that we wouldn't see the
same in reverse.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
I think that's.
Speaker 3 (19:32):
Quite unfortunately the nature of our political infrastructure.
Speaker 1 (19:37):
Well, let's take a look at the Department of Education
as mega lender. You talked about where we stand now
in forty five years, thanks to legislation, thanks to Congress,
thanks to executive orders, this Department of Education has been
an entity onto itself, a country unto itself in the
(19:59):
amount of money that goes through college borrowing. You had
the Biden fix attempt, which certainly was unconstitutional, which was
to write off these loans, you know, on the backs
of American taxpayers, many of them who did not pay
(20:20):
for a college education, and felt, you know, that they
were built by this. But what can the Trump administration,
what is it doing? What can the Trump administration and
Congress do to change this system which has many, many
problems in it.
Speaker 3 (20:41):
It does have many, many problems, but I will say
I'm sort of sitting in an optimistic moment right now
because a lot of the changes I've been advocating for
for a long time in this program were successfully made
through the Reconciliation legislation. So we saw a few things happen.
And you know, when President Biden failed in canceling student
(21:04):
debt because the court stood up and said it was illegal,
not to mention, unfair, to just wipe away the student.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
Debt of people who had benefited from.
Speaker 3 (21:12):
College, he basically tried another, like I think they called
it Plan B even explicitly, and it was basically to
create a repayment plan for borrowers that you kind of
just didn't make them repay their loans. And so we're
still waiting for the courts to weigh in on, you know,
whether that will be allowed to stand. I think most
people are in agreement that this is something that will
(21:34):
be overturned as well.
Speaker 2 (21:36):
So you know what the what the.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Legislation does is puts in place of reasonable repayment plans
for borrowers so that if you're somebody went off to college,
you know saw the benefit. You know you you paid
a price up front, but you borrowed to do that,
and then you went off and got a great job,
and you know, are a good job and you're able
to afford to repay taxpayers the money that you borrowed
from them.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You will be asked to do that.
Speaker 3 (21:59):
And so, you know, instead of this kind of crazy
backdoor forgiveness plan that President Biden tried to put in
place and sort of half succeeded in getting, you know,
put in place, we have really a reasonable or payment structure.
But that also provides some protection for borrowers who you know,
do find themselves kind of in trouble and you know,
things happen people. We rely on higher education to be
(22:22):
a mechanism, really the mechanism for social mobility for the
US economy, and so it kind of really needs to work,
you know, and like sometimes college doesn't work, and sometimes
it works. You know, it doesn't work for no fault
of the individual borrower.
Speaker 2 (22:37):
And so the new.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Legislation leaves in place these protections to say, if you're
someone who paid for college, it didn't work for you.
Maybe your college was lousy, they closed, or your profession
you know, was replaced by AI or something you know,
your loans will be forgiven ultimately after you show you
know you've had sufficient hard ship and.
Speaker 2 (22:56):
Repaying those loans. But those are a good changes.
Speaker 3 (23:00):
I mean that brings us back to the whole point,
which is that Americans are willing to lend money to
people to make these investments that for the most part
are good in their education and their skill development, so
that they can contribute to the workforce as long as
they pay those dollars back. And so legislation brings us
back to that model, which is actually a lending model,
(23:21):
and at the same time, it puts institutions more on
the hook. So you know, we're going to stop making
loans to programs of study that have consistently really poor
earnings outcomes for their graduates. And the bar is low,
but previously there was no bar, so this is a
huge step forward. Basically, it says that as a program
(23:41):
of study, like you're the major at every major, at
every accredited you know, funded institution, has to prove that
their graduates are out earning the median earner with a
high school diploma in that state.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So low bar, but better than no bar.
Speaker 3 (23:59):
And basically we're going to stop making a lot of
those loans that were never you know, should never have
been made in the first place because the borrowers had
no shot in being able to pay back.
Speaker 2 (24:09):
So the combo of.
Speaker 3 (24:10):
Those things, I think really sets us in the right
direction in a big way on student lending, following an
era where you know, the proposals that were coming from
the left were really just off the wall.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Pether, are you telling me that Lithuanian folk art isn't
a master's stroke in terms of a professional road that's
going to have a huge payoff, or perhaps trans Icelandic poetry?
Are you saying Are you saying that those areas of
(24:45):
study won't lead to a profitable human being?
Speaker 3 (24:49):
It turns out empirically speaking, no. And what I will
say in defense of those fields, I would love for
people who have the resources to pay for that themselves
to still be able to study those things. That's what's
great about America. But I, as a taxpayer, do not
want to be funding it, nor do I want other
taxpayers to be on the hook to pay when these
(25:10):
people cannot repay their loans. And that is the direction
that this legislation takes us, which is a great thing.
Speaker 1 (25:17):
Well, I guess that leads to my next question. How
culpable is the Department of Education in the high, high
cost some and oftentimes the unattainable cost of higher education
in America today?
Speaker 3 (25:34):
Well, I say partly, and I put some of the
blame on Congress too, because you know, as we've expanded
eligibility for federal lending and increased Pelgram eligibility, that has
translated to increasing costs. But the other thing, and those
changes have come from the Congress side, But the things
that have changed from the administrative side are that we
(25:57):
have introduced these programs that mean that you know, that
borrowers can make reduce payments in times when they have
low income, and that results in them often not paying
back their loans at all. And that actually happens quite
often for you know, more well off borrowers than you
would like to think. That translates almost directly to increased costs.
I mean, we even had a case of Georgetown Law
(26:20):
School was basically, you know, advising their students on the
front end, like, hey, you should keep borrowing because you're
not gonna have to pay it back, you know, once
you get to this amount because of this federal program
I mean, they got kind of exposed in the media
and how to change their ways. But you know, the
incentives were very apparent institutions, which is, your students.
Speaker 2 (26:41):
Don't have to pay this price.
Speaker 3 (26:42):
They're never going to pay back their loans, so you
might as well charge whatever you want. And that was,
you know, especially true for graduate and professional schools, less
true for undergrad But I would say we've definitely had
a federal policy regime that contributes substantially to the inflation
that we've seen.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
Trump notes the unaccountable bureaucracy. I think if anything is
true about the Department of Education, it is that it
has so many occasions been unaccountable. I think about a
series of investigative reports I did back around twenty fourteen
twenty fifteen in the Obama era, where these dear Colleague
(27:24):
letters started hitting everywhere, and I remember the Milwaukee parental
choice school system was subject to between the Department of
Education and the Department of Justice, a series of investigations
and harassment simply because they existed. And I wonder if
(27:48):
the changes that Trump is making, what he can do
on the executive end, will end that kind of power
trip from the Department and of education.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Yeah, I mean, I'm less an expert on the K
twelve side, but you know, I think one criticism of
the current administration that is fair is that they have
used similar tactics themselves. I mean, even in addressing the
real issues that are happening at some of the elite
college campuses, you know, in the way that the administration
has communicated and dealt with Harvard and Columbia. I mean,
(28:23):
there are real issues there to address, but I do
think the you know, kind of overreach or violation of
process that we saw the administration utilizing to address those
issues kind of felt too similar to me to the
overreach that we've seen in democratic administrations, and so I'd
love to see us move away from that kind of
(28:45):
heavy handed approach of federal involvement at all.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
I get what you're saying, but I think Americans have
really gotten to the point where they are absolutely sick
of institutions of higher education promoting you know, really completely
anti American forms of indocrination is what it is.
Speaker 2 (29:09):
Yep, yep.
Speaker 3 (29:10):
And you know a lot of my close friends, of course,
are you know, involved in these these movements, and then
that's exactly what they say as you say, Beth, Yeah,
like would love to just follow standard processes, not make
like a big fuss.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
Out of all this.
Speaker 3 (29:24):
But we have tried that, you know, year after year,
administration after administration, we have tried to do things in
kind of like a less boisterous way, and that has
not worked in affecting change.
Speaker 2 (29:35):
And so that you know, that is the idea. I
get it. I'm sympathetic to that as well.
Speaker 1 (29:39):
All right, final question for you. I appreciate the generosity
of your time today, and that is this, where does
higher education go from here? Where do you see higher
education ten years down the line into the next several decades.
Speaker 3 (30:00):
I think that higher education is facing or reckoning at
the moment. And it's not a reckoning caused by lawmakers
or federal or state interventions. It's reckoning that Americans are
questioning what is higher ed, what's it worth?
Speaker 2 (30:14):
And what's it doing for me?
Speaker 3 (30:15):
And as much as the government pays for the continued
existence of this sector, they need Americans to be bought in.
And I think, and I maybe this is hopeful more
than it is a prediction. I hope that we will
see institutions responding to the fact that Americans want programs
(30:37):
to be you know, creating, focus on creating opportunity and
economic financial opportunity for their students more than you know,
this sort of politicized indoctrination of ideas or you know,
the notion of developing citizens in one light or another.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
You know.
Speaker 3 (30:56):
I hope we can move away from that, and I
think the demand for Americans will push institutions in the direction.
Whether or not the policy or legal infrastructure around higher
ED will enable them to be innovative enough to really
move quickly, I don't know, but I'm hopeful that we'll
see some changes.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
In that direction.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
I hope they's sustaining those changes as well, because we've
certainly experienced a good deal of whiplash over the years
in terms of politics and education. Ultimately, the idea should
be to provide the best education possible. There are a
lot of moving parts and players in that, but that
(31:38):
should be without the sort of indoctrination we've seen campuses
across the country.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (31:47):
Thanks to my guest today, Beth Akers, senior fellow at
the American Enterprise Institute, you've been listening to another edition
of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittles, Senior Elections
correspondent at The Federalist. We'll be back soon with more.
Until then, stay lovers of freedom and anxious for the fray.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!