President Donald 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 second first 100 days have already felt like being trapped inside a Russian novel鈥攁nd we鈥檙e barely underway.
Here鈥檚 my take on what we鈥檝e seen in K-12. Be forewarned, you鈥檒l need to look elsewhere for a blistering denunciation or an exercise in cheerleading. That鈥檚 because I鈥檓 feeling pretty conflicted. On the one hand, I support Team 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 priorities and vision. On the other, I think responsible government is less a matter of what you intend to do than what you actually do. And, on that score, there鈥檚 much to give me pause.
Character is destiny, in Russian novels as in life, and what we鈥檙e seeing reflects 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚. But unlike Trump 1.0, when his staff often tempered his impulsiveness, bombast, and distaste for detail, we鈥檙e getting the Full Trump this go-round. I didn鈥檛 fully anticipate the resulting chaos. Much of what鈥檚 happened over the past three-plus months has startled me. It鈥檚 not the priorities that have surprised me: I anticipated the emphasis on diversity, equity, and inclusion; gender ideology; school choice; and reducing the federal footprint. But I鈥檝e been taken aback by the number and sweep of executive orders, the blunderbuss posture, and just how indiscriminate DOGE proved to be.
What鈥檚 surprised me in particular? First, what we鈥檝e seen has been far less deliberate than I鈥檇 expected, given the Trump team鈥檚 thick (metaphorical) playbook and deep bench of talent. Second, the prominence and relentless aggression of the DOGE chainsaw. Third, the taste for confrontation, even when it made it tougher to rack up wins. Fourth, the failure to coherently make the case for many of their more controversial actions.
Look, I thought DOGE had enormous potential. I鈥檝e long argued that the U.S. Department of Education could be run far more efficiently and responsibly鈥攁s have others, like , my AEI colleague and a former director of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The department suffered under a troubled culture and a padded payroll, and its contracts would benefit from a good scouring. Moreover, previous administrations have lacked the will (or even the desire) to tackle any of this. So I . But I noted that success would depend on the coherence of what followed. What we got was a capriciousness and clumsiness that raised red flags. DOGE鈥檚 mission was to promote efficiency and ensure money is spent on the things that matter. Well, months after ED鈥檚 and , it鈥檚 entirely unclear that this will produce a more effective agency鈥攁nd not just a smaller one. There鈥檚 been a disconcerting lack of clarity about what鈥檚 being cut, the rationale for specific cuts, , or how things will work going forward.
Take the National Assessment of Educational Progress. DOGE either ignored the secretary of education鈥檚 promise to preserve NAEP or didn鈥檛 realize that it was cutting NAEP-essential staff and contracts (similar lapses, of course, have been evident across a number of agencies). While the small NAEP unit attached to the National Assessment Governing Board was preserved, that team is charged with management, strategy, and communications. The staff members who actually coordinated and crunched the data for NAEP got , along with more than 90 percent of IES. As the administration scrambles to recover from this misstep, NAEP is getting put back together with bubble gum and duct tape, while chunks of it (including the U.S. history test) are jettisoned. I get less of an impression of streamlining than of DOGE just gutting everything in its path.
罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 to dismantle the Department of Education is better understood as an emphatic memo asking the secretary of education to do what she was already doing (since abolishing the department or moving components to other agencies requires an act of Congress). That鈥檚 why many of us assumed the president would urge Congress to act and then focus on things he could control. Instead, the long-shot push to dismantle ED plays on, even as Team Trump everyone that no spending cuts are coming to ED鈥檚 major programs like Title I, IDEA, or Pell Grants (though there鈥檚 been talk of moving IDEA, for instance, to the Department of Health and Human Services鈥攁 move that would require not-in-the-cards congressional approval). 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 budget proposal does call for zeroing out Head Start, though it鈥檚 unclear whether Congress will go along. Moreover, the push to shrink Washington鈥檚 role sits uneasily alongside the new executive order on , which calls for Uncle Sam to actively promote AI integration in schools.
Then there鈥檚 DEI. Obviously, those who support DEI hate everything Trump has done on this count. If you鈥檙e , though, you think the administration has a compelling case. Federal civil rights law schools and colleges to abide by the Civil Rights Act鈥檚 prohibition on discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. It seems obvious that when school officials are organizing race-based affinity groups or restricting programs based on student race or ethnicity, they are violating 鈥攁nd creating a 鈥渉ostile learning environment鈥� for some students. Moreover, since 2021, four years of state-level legislative and legal efforts have offered up lessons about how to craft directives and legislation that are broadly popular and take First Amendment concerns seriously. I expected the administration鈥檚 ability to draw on those experiences would be an enormous boon.
Well, that hard-earned wisdom sure seems to have fallen by the wayside. The administration鈥檚 and 鈥溾�� on DEI did little to distinguish between discriminatory conduct by schools, on one hand, and classroom instruction or materials that touched on matters of race, on the other. The federal government has both a right and an obligation to tackle the first. But not only is ED statutorily barred from interfering in matters of curriculum and instruction, the sense that it wants to raises First Amendment concerns鈥攁nd reframes its efforts not as a response to DEI excess but a worrisome exercise in illiberalism. That鈥檚 made it easy for blue state chiefs to reject the administration鈥檚 DEI directive while credibly arguing that they鈥檙e not 鈥減ro-DEI鈥� (unpopular) but 鈥減ro-First Amendment鈥� (very popular). It鈥檚 also given 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 opponents a strong legal hand, as seen last week when that the DEI directive doesn鈥檛 pass legal muster.
The same kind of good, bad, and confounding analysis applies to much of 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 agenda. On gender identity, his that Title IX鈥檚 use of sex means 鈥渂iological sex鈥� was necessary and appropriate. After all, the Biden administration sought to unilaterally rewrite Title IX to include gender identity and then force schools to overhaul policies governing locker rooms, dormitories, and more. 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 EO was a much-needed reaffirmation of what the law . The issue is with how Team Trump has followed up. Trump the governor of Maine over its transgender sports policy, threatening to strip federal K-12 funds鈥攁nd then . If it were to stand, this would be a stunning expansion of presidential authority in education. But it鈥檚 not likely to stand. Republican attorneys general successfully challenged Biden鈥檚 Title IX guidance, and Maine will likely prevail, too. Meanwhile, 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 move to strip vast sums based on an executive order is a lousy precedent, an odd move for a president who talks of empowering states and a tactic that invites backlash against an otherwise popular policy.
On school choice, there鈥檚 been a genial , ED has (thankfully) dropped the regulations that the Biden administration imposed on the charter school program, and the department has invited states to apply for waivers and is looking to make programs more choice-friendly. Congress may adopt a groundbreaking in this year鈥檚 budget reconciliation bill. But the reality is that choice is mostly a state issue. The Every Student Succeeds Act already grants states enormous flexibility that they鈥檙e not using, and empowering states is less about rhetoric than about changing laws or overhauling regulations. Thus far, as best I can tell, there鈥檚 been little obvious activity on tackling rules and regulations.
Like I said up top, I鈥檓 conflicted. I鈥檝e been impressed by the willingness to mount fights that are overdue, necessary, and challenging. But I can鈥檛 look past the disorder, opacity, and disregard for established law. Doing so much via executive action is a horrific norm that serves no one well. These proclamations can be reversed on day one by the next president. Conservatives were rightly livid when Biden鈥檚 White House operated this way, and ratcheting things up will eventually come back to haunt Republicans.
As we hit the 100-day mark, there鈥檚 still much time to course-correct. I鈥檓 rooting for a recalibration, for some sensible restraint and respect for due process. Trump has altered course on priorities like and ; next to that, bringing more discipline to the education agenda is an easy lift. And it certainly appears that DOGE鈥檚 role in education is waning. Elon Musk is mostly out, and DOGE has already cut all it readily can. Meanwhile, veteran K-12 state chiefs Penny Schwinn and Kirsten Baesler will be stepping into senior roles soon, if confirmed by the Senate. What we鈥檝e seen thus far could be a product of who鈥檚 been at the table, so these shifts could yield something of a reset.
Team Trump risks taking issues where they entered with broad-based public support and turning them into political losers. Now, some in the administration believe that, if they only move fast and forcefully enough, they鈥檒l be able to drive lasting cultural changes. Some deem education such a captive of the left that there鈥檚 no real price to be paid for breakage鈥攖hat there鈥檒l be no blowback. But that鈥檚 a dicey bet.
The past decade has shown that over-the-top tactics may serve mostly to alienate normies and energize the opposition. The way to make lasting change is by enacting legislation. Republicans entered 2025 with on and control the House and the Senate, yet Congress has mostly been on the sidelines. Meanwhile, Trump is . During Biden鈥檚 first two years, Democrats could have legislated on student loans or amended Title IX to reflect gender. They didn鈥檛 even try, instead they left it to dubious White House freelancing. That proved to be bad politics and a recipe for reversal. I suspect the same will prove true here.
It was Vice President J.D. Vance who in 2022 while running for the Senate, 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to have to get pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.鈥� Well, so far, Trump 2.0 has delivered on that promise. But plunging presidential popularity, internal discord, and market gyrations are creating fierce headwinds. We鈥檙e 100 days in, with 1,361 left to go, and I can鈥檛 yet say whether what we鈥檝e seen thus far is a prologue or a plot device. I suppose this is what it feels like to be a character in a Russian novel.
