“Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 351, paragraph 1.)

This is literally the first sentence of this section.

The rest of Burke’s stated mission advocates for what’s called “school choice”, where parents have the option to direct their childrens’ share of education funding through an education savings account – funded largely by state and local taxpayers – to a school of their choice.

As I touched on in the previous section¹, most who have written about the idea that Republicans are going to shut down the Department of Education don’t believe that it will happen.

“…surveys [also] suggest that a majority of Republicans think the federal government should spend more on education, which highlights just how difficult the practical politics of this would be. [Source]²

But what if they did?

The big question is, what do they mean by “eliminate”? Do they mean eliminating all of the programs altogether, or does it mean moving some or all of the programs to other federal entities? Keep in mind that their four biggest programs are student loans for college and other education-related costs, Pell Grants (need-based grants for low-income undergraduate students), IDEA (ensures that children with disabilities get a fair and equal public education that meets their needs), and Title I, which provides financial assistance to schools with high percentages of low-income students, ensuring that they, too, receive a quality public education.

Right away, we can see that a total elimination disproportionately affects the poor, working poor, and disabled, as well as 51+% of college students³, who borrow federal money to attend school.

Rick Hess, quoted above, doesn’t seem to think most lawmakers will be willing to call for slashing, much less eliminating federal aid for poor and disabled kids. I say, he underestimates the current Republican party.

In fact, in February 2023, eight months before the above article was written, House Republican Barry Moore (R-AL) sponsored and introduced a bill to eliminate the Department of Education⁴, other than the Pell Grant Program and the Direct Loan Program (student loans), which were to be moved to the Department of the Treasury; a fact Hess overlooks when he reassures us that there’s nothing to worry about. (If you’re keeping score, Moore’s bill would cut all federal funding for poor and disabled K-12 children and give it to their individual states.) Moore’s home state, Alabama, can scarcely afford to cut funding – it already ranks 5th worst in the nation⁵ for education.

Still other politicians (Ted Cruz⁶ comes to mind) have argued for shutting down the whole thing.

Holt points out a big issue with shutting it down entirely: “But the biggest question mark is what to do with the 1.2 trillion dollar loan portfolio that the Department of Education currently administers. The easiest option, administratively, is to forgive all of the debt, but I’m guessing [Republicans] want those dollars back. The other option would be to sell the entire portfolio in the private market. Given how risky the portfolio is – the generous terms like Income-Based Repayment that must be offered for every loan, the decreased powers the private entity would have to claw back the dollars (no more garnishing tax refunds), the new infrastructure required of the private entity to administer the program, and the teams of lawyers and investment bankers needed to organize an auction, the government would almost certainly lose money from selling the portfolio. The last option, of course, would be to move the loan portfolio to another entity, like the Department of Treasury, but, again, that feels like cheating.”

House Republican Thomas Massie (R-KY) also introduced a bill to abolish the DoE⁷, which read, in its entirety (yes, really), “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2023.” Obviously that one didn’t happen. It was co-sponsored by Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), Rep. Dan Bishop (R-NC), Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO), Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA), Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL), and Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX).

So what would moving funding to the states mean for education?

First, we’d have to trust that superintendents would use the money wisely, for what best benefits students. But we’d be eliminating federal oversight to make sure of this, so no guarantees there. Before that, we’re assuming that states divided the money fairly and equitably among school districts, rather than the wealthy lobbying for more than their fair share and succeeding. Nobody who has proposed eliminating the DoE has included any way they’d be making sure that school districts are actually serving their students. That’s a big problem. Simply abolishing the DoE doesn’t actually advance school choice. You have to have a plan for that, or states would have to have their own plans for that. Less oversight would also lead to inconsistent special education services and fragmented educational policies between schools, school districts, and states.

The DoE also does things like monitor school performance, collect data, and promote evidence-based practices. There would be no guarantee that individual states would do any of those things, leading to not only a broader disparity in the quality of a public education between states (not that you’d know about it, if you’re not monitoring), but not all states would need to “promote evidence-based practices”, which includes things like early identification and support for students with learning and behavioral needs and other strategies that improve student outcomes.

More broadly, states would no longer have to adhere to Title IX rules that provide greater and explicit protections for LGBTQ+ students. Republican states have already sued to block these⁸, so it’s not farfetched to assume that some states will simply ignore these rules and allow schools to discriminate against and terrorize these students, to say nothing of the potential results of eliminating federal oversight for racial discrimination. (Spoiler: Burke explicitly argues for this later in this section. Being able to legally discriminate is something she’s nearly gleeful about. It’s almost one of the primary reasons she has for eliminating the DoE.)

So what does Trump himself say about abolishing the Department of Education? From the above linked article:

“In his conversation with Musk that aired on X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter, Trump said the U.S. had a “horrible” education ranking at the bottom of developed countries while spending the most.

It’s not totally clear what sources Trump was using. On recent international tests, the U.S. ranked sixth in reading, 10th in science, and 26th in math among 81 countries. Older test results show the U.S. ranked lower, especially in math. The U.S. does spend more per-pupil than most developed nations, including many that score better on key measures.

Trump said some states won’t do well, but many would do a better job on their own while spending less money.

“Of the 50, I would bet that 35 would do great, and 15 of them or 20 of them would be as good as Norway,” Trump told Musk. “You know Norway is considered great.”

He said the federal government could provide “a little monitor. You want to make sure they are teaching English, as an example. Give us a little English, right?”

Trump’s campaign did not respond to a request to elaborate on the candidate’s plans.”

“Are schools teaching English” is a low bar to clear. It’s also apparent that neither he, nor his campaign, have any real plans beyond destruction, nor any remark about it that isn’t garbled bluster. What happens to the 15 states he estimated “would not do great”? Screw the kids in those states, right? They don’t need a quality education. Pay attention to what he’s saying here, though – he’s acknowledging that he KNOWS that this will result in a huge disparity between the quality of education that individual states are able to offer – he just doesn’t care.

What would this mean for teachers?

The Center for American Progress estimates that shuttering the DoE would decimate more than 180,000 teacher positions and negatively affect the academic outcomes of 2.8 million vulnerable students across the country. The loss of 180,000 teacher positions represents 5.64% of the teacher workforce nationally and affects 2.8 million students, due to the phasing out of Title I funding. In some states, such as Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, Nevada, and Florida, nearly 10 percent teacher jobs would be lost. Louisiana would experience the greatest impact, with more than 12 percent of teaching positions eliminated. [Source]⁹

With all of these things in mind, let’s continue to read this section.

“To the extent that federal taxpayer dollars are used to fund education programs, those funds should be block-granted to states without strings, eliminating the need for many federal and state bureaucrats.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 352, paragraph 1.)

“Without strings.” That answers the question of whether or not they plan to provide any oversight into what states are actually doing with the money, or how they’re treating children, or whether they’re providing a quality education. There would be LITERALLY NO ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS for what constitutes a “quality education.”

“Although student loans and grants should ultimately be restored to the private sector (or, at the very least, the federal government should revisit its role as a guarantor, rather than direct lender) federal postsecondary education investments should bolster economic growth, and recipient institutions should nourish academic freedom and embrace intellectual diversity.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 352, paragraph 2.)

That answers the question about what they want to do with student loans. As discussed above, moving them to the private sector is a money loser for whomever gets stuck with them. I don’t know how you’d force or encourage the private sector to take on these loans.

“Rather than continuing to buttress a higher education establishment captured by woke “diversicrats” and a de facto monopoly enforced by the federal accreditation cartel, federal postsecondary education policy should prepare students for jobs in the dynamic economy, nurture institutional diversity, and expose schools to greater market forces.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 352, paragraph 2.)

There’s a bit of unpacking to do on this one. By “diversicrats”, she’s implying that higher education has been “captured” by administrators who promote diversity, inclusion, and progressive social values (which she refers to as “woke.”) Claiming that the federal accreditation system is a “cartel” suggests that it has a monopoly on what qualifies as quality higher education, which, yes. That’s literally its whole intended purpose. Ensuring quality in an education you’re paying good money for is not a negative thing. Many jobs will not hire you if you didn’t go to an accredited school, because the quality of education you received may not have actually included what you need to know in order to perform that job. Would you see a surgeon who went to a non-accredited school for his training? Is she suggesting that sham universities (like Trump University) should be treated equally with accredited institutions? (Trump University famously bilked people out of their money and taught them nothing useful¹⁰.)

There’s nothing inherently wrong with bolstering trade schools and focusing on job readiness, but the absolute disdain Burke has for quality standards and modern values is incredibly off-putting.

“The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans.” (Project 2025, Section 3.2: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 354, paragraph 6.)

Democrats can’t forgive student loans, because then people might like Democrats better than us! Nothing says all your ideas are cruel like arguing for passing laws that actually PREVENT others from doing kindnesses. This is also the same woman who, a few scant paragraphs ago, argued for moving student loans to the private sector, so I don’t know what she’s pretending she wants to protect, here.

Here’s what else is wrong with her statement: Most or all of the people whose student loans were forgiven DID pay back their debts. Several times over, in some cases. What was forgiven was the interest on these loans. And not everyone is/was eligible. Teachers, government employees, people who work for nonprofits or in the medical sector, and the disabled got special consideration. Everyone else had to have a particular type of repayment plan that they’d been paying on time for at least 20 years. [Source]¹¹

As of January 2024, the Biden Administration had forgiven $136.6 billion in student loans for more than 3.7 million borrowers. How’d that break down? 

• $56.7 billion for 793,400 borrowers on the PSLF program, which is available to people in government jobs and certain nonprofit workers.
• $45.7 billion to 930,500 borrowers who had been paying on their student loans for 20 years on an IDR plan.
• Forgiveness for 513,000 borrowers who have permanent disabilities.
• $22.5 billion to 1.3 million borrowers who were defrauded by their schools.

In February 2024, the Biden Administration started forgiving student loan debt for borrowers on SAVE plans who took out less than $12,000 and had been paying their loans for at least 10 years. [Source]¹²

So, nothing terribly radical there. If you’re keeping score, we learned in Section 1.3¹³ that the Heritage Foundation (authors of Project 2025) conducted a bogus study that showed that government workers were being overpaid by 30-40% (when in fact, they’re earning about 27.5% LESS than similar workers in the private sector.) Given actual reality, it doesn’t seem too generous to forgive the interest on their student loan debt. But the Heritage Foundation doesn’t deal in actual reality.

If you were paying attention above, Burke’s proposal to lower standards for higher education and attack accreditation systems would result in MORE students being defrauded, and getting rid of loan forgiveness would promise them no recourse for it.

For reference and full disclosure, my own student loans were forgiven in February 2024. I borrowed $10,623 in 2012 and paid on it every month through January 2024 (with the exception of during the pandemic), for more than 12 years, when my $1,200-odd remaining balance was forgiven. Amount I’d paid over 12 years? $12,836.27. So they’d gotten their money, plus $2,213.27.

Now, I’d have paid my student loans off. I only had a few months to go. I paid them faithfully for 12 years, which is how I qualified for forgiveness. But I also don’t think that forgiving what amounted to just over $1K for people like me, who paid more than $2K over what they borrowed, is insane. It’s representative of trying to fix a broken and predatory lending system that unfortunately, many folks can’t get out from under. And like I said above, I don’t think it’s too generous to forgive student loans for people you’re underpaying by 27.5% to work for you, either.

Alright, you might say. I’m not convinced, but I get it. Who’s paying for these forgivenesses?

Analysts agree on the fact that canceling federal student loans increases the federal deficit¹⁴. Beyond that, they’re torn:

“Some express concerns about the negative effects that large amounts of national debt can have on the economy, including making it vulnerable to rising interest rates and increased inflation. But others claim that our government has run on a deficit every year since 2001 without many adverse effects, and we wouldn’t see much of an impact from canceling student loans.”

The government has basically two options when it comes to reducing the deficit: Decrease spending, or raise taxes. The Biden Administration has promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, but future administrations may decide differently. We know Trump is planning to decrease taxes for the wealthy and raise them on the middle class, while simultaneously slashing funding for programs (like the Department of Education.) Worth noting is that Biden has also managed to reduce the deficit by over $1 trillion¹⁵, although estimates by the Committee for a Responsible Budget say that up to 80% of that may be chalked up to post-pandemic spending drops.

“There are trade-offs and it’s quite likely that if we spend this money on forgiving student loan debt we won’t spend it on other things we want to see the government do,” says Sandy Baum, nonresident senior fellow at the Urban Institute.”

Many advocates say that the immediate benefits of canceling student loan debt outweigh the long-term implications, which may be fairly negligible to begin with:

“It’s not that we don’t worry about the macroeconomic implications [of student loan debt forgiveness], ” says Cody Hounanian, executive director of the Student Debt Crisis Center, a nonprofit advocating for student loan debt cancellation. “I just prioritize what everyday Americans are needing at this moment.”

Canceling student loan debt could remove significant barriers keeping everyday Americans from achieving upward mobility. Research suggests that it could help consumers from less privileged backgrounds build wealth and address racial disparities by benefiting those with the biggest loan balances, typically Black and Latinx consumers. Those benefits, for some, are worth any potential ramifications in the future.

“Canceling those debts is a way to right a set of wrongs that are highly unequal by race, by gender and by socioeconomic background,” says Eaton. “It’s well worth it.”

So when you hear people say, “THE TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THIS, WHY SHOULD I PAY OFF SOMEONE ELSE’S STUDENT LOAN?!”, well, that’s not exactly accurate. The taxpayers *could* make part or all of it up in taxes, assuming taxes on the middle class get raised, as Trump has promised to do¹⁶. More than likely, it gets paid off as reduced spending in other areas. Still others say that since the original principle was paid off and then some, that there’s no need to add the forgiven interest to the deficit, since it was already above and beyond what was owed.

Still others argue that we should take that money and increase spending on programs that directly benefit the poor and underprivileged²¹.

And let’s not forget Trump’s other policies which will increase the cost of living for the middle class. You can read my Bite-Sized Brief¹⁷ on the effect of the tariffs on the American people (and of which he proposes more of the same if elected,) where I found that Trump’s first round of tariffs cost U.S. companies approximately $46 billion¹⁸ (which farmers bore the brunt of) and 245,000 jobs¹⁹, cost American consumers $51 billion in increased prices, and produced a net loss of $7.2 billion to the economy²⁰.

From linked article 16:

“Trump has proposed partially paying for these tax cuts for the wealthy with policies that would increase the middle class’s cost of living. Trump has proposed a blanket tariff on all imports, which would cost a typical family about $125 per month—roughly $1,500 annually. He would also likely attempt to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act’s electric vehicle tax credits and the Biden administration’s vehicle emissions rule, which would eventually increase the typical family’s gasoline bill by about $25 each month. This is a combined cost of $150 a month.”

“President Joe Biden, on the other hand, has proposed a 2025 budget that would offer financial relief to middle-class households. He would extend expiring tax cuts for low- and middle-income families—including enhanced financial help for ACA health plans—as well as enact further financial relief through expanding the child tax credit. He would pay for this by raising taxes on the wealthy and large corporations.”

“The Biden administration has also successfully reduced families’ costs by curbing junk fees and passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which places a $35 cap on insulin, a $2,000 limit on out-of-pocket prescription drug spending, and empowers Medicare to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices.”

(Sources for claims made in the quote can be found in the article.)

I realize this feels like a bit of a digression, but it does answer the question of who’s going to eventually pay down the federal deficit under each administration’s proposals. The bottom line is, giving millions of middle and working class people more monthly disposable income, benefits the economy. Reducing someone’s monthly debt service by $250 pushes their purchasing power for a mortgage up by about $50,000²². It means someone who can’t buy a home because of their debt has a better chance of becoming a homeowner.

The statement from the White House²³ on the matter points this out as well:

“Additionally, a recent study suggests that student debt cancellation can lead to increased earnings (due to greater geographic and career mobility), improved credit scores, and lower delinquency rates on other debts (Di Maggio, Kalda, and Yao, 2019)²⁴. This can facilitate access to capital for starting a business or buying a car or home. As home mortgages often require a certain debt-to-income ratio and depend heavily on credit scores, student debt cancellation could potentially increase home ownership.”

“Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 354, paragraph 7.)

Enforcement of civil rights which completely disregards race and gender discrimination not only does not reflect a “proper understanding of the law”, it’s blatantly discriminatory. She’s arguing here that racial discrimination and gender discrimination are A-okay, because it’s not your right to not be discriminated against because of your race or gender. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 would like a word, Ms. Burke. One wonders what she believes a “proper understanding of the law” is, in this case.

“Transfer all Indian education programs to the Bureau of Indian Education.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 358, paragraph 5.)

Burke goes on to argue for transferring all Tribally-centered programs to the Bureau of Indian Education, which is part of the Department of the Interior. She does not mention increasing their budgets to properly handle any of these programs. Perhaps that goes without saying? In any case, this isn’t a unilaterally bad idea if done correctly; perhaps the Bureau of Indian Education is better equipped ideologically and culturally than the DoE to handle their own business. Burke goes on to advocate for the shuffling to other departments a large number of programs currently under the purview of the DoE.

“The next Administration should completely reverse the student loan federalization of 2010 and work with Congress to spin off FSA and its student loan obligations to a new government corporation with professional governance and management.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 359, paragraph 8.)

This is a weird and contradictory statement, and could reflect a misunderstanding on the author’s part of what the student loan federalization of 2010 actually DID. Earlier in this section, Burke argued for moving student loans to the private sector. Then, she reversed course and argued for keeping them in the government. Now, she’s arguing for reversing the 2010 federalization, which specifically ended the practice of private banks issuing federally guaranteed student loans – indicating that she wants a return to that practice – and in the same breath arguing that the loans should be administered by a “new government corporation” – i.e., not a private entity. The conditions she goes on to describe –  federal loans being managed directly by the Department of the Treasury – is decidedly NOT moving them to the private sector, so one wonders why we would need to reverse the 2010 federalization. (Additionally, does moving student loans to the Department of the Treasury even quality as a “new government corporation”? This portion is a more than a bit nonsensical.)

Next, we get to the proposed eliminations and rollbacks.

First, she wants to allow discrimination and reduce oversight for Charter Schools: “The new Administration must take immediate steps to rescind the new requirements and lessen the federal restrictions on charter schools.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 363, paragraph 4.)

To understand this, you’d have to understand that the Department of Education under the Biden Administration proposed (not imposed) some additional requirements²⁵ for Charter schools to receive federal funding in March 2022. Those requirements were:

• Demonstrate demand for a new charter school by showing evidence of collaboration with local public schools. This would involve demonstrating that the charter school would not negatively affect existing public schools or the community at large by causing over-enrollment or draining resources.
• The proposal included provisions requiring charter schools to show their fiscal and operational transparency. Schools would need to show strong governance practices and clear plans for financial sustainability without relying solely on federal funding.
• Schools would have to outline how they would promote racial and socioeconomic diversity within their student body. This requirement aimed to ensure that charter schools are inclusive and serve a diverse range of students, rather than concentrating on certain demographics (read: rich, white, Christian.) Incidentally, this is the requirement that Burke is most offended by.
• Restrict or reduce federal funding for charter schools run by for-profit management organizations, emphasizing that federal grants need to benefit students, not private entities.

I’m having real trouble figuring out why any of this is a negative thing, unless you are, as Burke seems to be doing, arguing that charter schools should be run by for-profits, allowed to discriminate based on race, gender, and socioeconomic status, and operate without any oversight even if it results in them harming their communities.

She also argues for stopping the Office of Civil Rights Data Collection (CDRC) from collecting any information on nonbinary students and removing that as an option. Only students identifying as either male or female shall be counted. “The new Administration must quickly move to rescind these changes, which add a new “nonbinary” sex category to OCR’S data collection and issue a new CRDC that will collect data directly relevant to OCR’s statutory enforcement authority.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 364, paragraph 2.)

This seems arbitrary and discriminatory for no good reason, and is another example of the Bruno Strategy at work. If we don’t count nonbinary students in our statistics, they stop existing!

She goes on to advocate for Florida’s SB 7044, which is another way of lowering standards in higher education (she couches it as “providing universities more flexibility on accreditation.”) (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 364, paragraph 5.)

“With its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on July 12, 2022, the Biden Education Department seeks to gut the hard-earned rights of women with its changes to the department’s regulations implementing Title IX, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs and activities. Instead, the Biden Administration has sought to trample women’s and girls’ athletic opportunities and due process on campus, threaten free speech and religious liberty, and erode parental rights in elementary and secondary education regarding sensitive issues of sex.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, pages 364 and 365.)

This is thinly veiled transphobia. She’s so desperate to discriminate against trans people that the assertion “prohibiting discrimination based on sex has trampled women’s rights” just came out of her mouth. Wow. Just no.

“Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 365, paragraph 3.)

Well, not everyone HAS a “biological sex recognized at birth.” This claim is science denial at work. Experts estimate that up to 1.7 percent of the population are born with intersex traits²⁶, which can mean anatomy, reproductive organs, hormone patterns, and/or chromosomal patterns that do not fit binary notions of “male” or “female.” They’re somewhere in between. 1.7% of the population is about the same amount as people who have red hair. Do you know a redhead? Then you likely know a person with intersex traits, whether they’re aware of it themselves or not (have you seen your own chromosomes? I haven’t.)

Burke is arguing here for federally sanctioning discrimination against people who cannot help their chromosomal, physical, and hormonal makeup. This isn’t a new thing. The conventional wisdom, if the characteristics of being intersex are noticed at birth, is to leave the person alone until they’re old enough to know how they identify, then allow them to live as they wish. As recently as the 1960’s, these people were called “hermaphrodites”, and doctors would simply assign them a sex at birth and perform a surgery to match their genitals to the sex chosen, then their parents would raise them accordingly. Since penises were harder to manufacture or surgically engineer, most infants with intersex characteristics were simply made as feminine as possible and then raised as biological girls. This, as you can imagine, screwed people up. Here’s some history on that.²⁷ (Or you can look up David Reimer.)

“The Trump Administration’s 2020 Title IX regulation protected the foundational right to due process for those who are accused of sexual misconduct. The Biden Administration’s proposed change to the interpretation of Title IX disposes of these rights. The next Administration should move quickly to restore the rights of women and girls and restore due process protections for accused individuals.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 365, paragraph 5.)

This is a GROSS misrepresentation (and I do mean gross.) In 2020, the Trump administration introduced changes to Title IX that focused on protecting the due process rights of individuals accused of sexual misconduct. These regulations included the right for the accused (and the accuser) to have a live hearing with cross-examination, a requirement that behavior be “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” to qualify as sexual harassment, and rights for both parties to receive written notice of the allegations, access to the evidence, and an equal opportunity to present their case.

The Biden administration has proposed (not imposed) revising Title IX regulations, potentially shifting the focus back to a broader interpretation of what constitutes sexual harassment and misconduct. The intent is to make it easier for victims of sexual harassment and assault to report incidents and receive support. Burke has made it clear that she does not consider terrorizing transgender students “objectively offensive”, considering she’s trying to codify into law their federally sanctioned discrimination and abuse, so this rollback would simply be in service of that.

And let’s discuss what “severe” and “pervasive” mean in this context. If a person, say, grabs someone by the pussy, but it was only once, and not in a severe manner, does that not count as sexual harassment under the Trump Administration’s interpretation? Do we not find that “objectively offensive”?

“At the same time, there is no scientific or legal basis for redefining “sex” to “sexual orientation and gender identity” in Title IX.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 365, paragraph 7.)

False. There is absolutely a scientific basis for it including gender identity. See above. As for it not including sexual orientation, this is an argument she’s making for legalizing discrimination against LGBTQ+ students as well. (And there IS a legal basis for it – it’s called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an examination of which resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that the word “sex” in Title VII includes sexual orientation and gender identity.) Sounds like Burke is just mad about the ruling. In any case, the ruling was significant because it extended protections under federal law to LGBTQ+ individuals, ensuring that they cannot be fired, denied a job, or otherwise discriminated against at work simply because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Burke is arguing for going back to discriminatory practices here.

She even mentions Bostock in the next sentence, saying that redefining “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity in Title IX regulations “misrepresents Bostock.” It doesn’t. In fact, it’s completely aligned with the spirit of the ruling; she’s just a bigot. (FYI, Bostock was more specifically about discrimination in employment, not in schools, but the point stands.)

“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 366, paragraph 2.)

“Day one, we’re going to start legalizing discrimination!” No, sex is not a “fixed biological fact.” See above. Just for fun, here’s a link about the Guevedoces, which, roughly translated, means “penis at twelve.” The Guevedoces are a small community in the Dominican Republic where some males are born looking like girls and subsequently grow penises at puberty, when their testicles also descend. Most were brought up as girls until this happened to them. [Source]²⁸ The world is a vast and complicated place, and very little about it is a “fixed biological fact.”

The next few pages are simply blatant racism, which doesn’t bear repeating. Suffice it to say, Burke’s goal is to effectively legalize discrimination of all kinds in K-12 schools. At one point, she even sneers that “the media will see this as an attack on civil rights.” Yes. And rightfully so.

“Currently the Department of Education relies on graduation rates and average earnings as proxies for educational quality. Both of those outcomes, however, are highly dependent upon a student’s socioeconomic background, sex, family status, and other factors.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 371, paragraph 2.)

I only include this to point out the utter hypocrisy. She’s admitting here that socioeconomic background, sex, and other factors DO affect children’s educational outcomes, hence the need for DEI and other programs that she is steadfastly against. She wants to pretend that everyone is equal when it comes time to legalize bigotry and cut funding for children, but she’ll admit that there is a systemic issue if it helps her make a point that it’s difficult to actually gauge educational quality. I see you, Ms. Burke.

Now we’re on to the new requirements she’s proposing.

She starts off by delegitimizing the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), because they “use legislation to block school choice, advocate for additional spending in education, and lobbied to keep schools closed during the pandemic.” (Pages 373 and 374.) Yes, how dare those awful teachers want more investment into their schools and students, and want to save students’ and teachers’ lives by attempting to keep them safe during a pandemic! Why on earth would teachers acting on behalf of the safety and well-being of their students offend anyone?

“Congress should rescind the National Education Association’s congressional charter and remove the false impression that federal taxpayers support the political activities of this special interest group.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 374, paragraph 2.)

No more teachers’ unions! She has the audacity to suggest that the NEA is “a demonstrably radical special interest group that overwhelmingly supports left-of-center policies and policymakers.” No, teachers support science. I’ll note also that she says “demonstrably”, but fails to demonstrate it.

“By its very design, critical race theory has an “applied” dimension, as its founders state in their essays that define the theory. Those who subscribe to the theory believe that racism (in this case, treating individuals differently based on race) is appropriate – necessary, even – making the theory more than merely an analytical tool to describe race in public and private life. The theory disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity. So, when critical race theory is used as part of school activities such as mandatory affinity groups, teacher training programs in which educators are required to confess their privilege, or school assignments in which students must defend the false idea that America is systemically racist, the theory is actively disrupting the values that hold communities together such as equality under the law and colorblindness.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, pages 374 and 375.)

Words almost fail. She’s arguing that Critical Race theorists posit that racism is “appropriate and necessary.” I can tell she hasn’t read the assignment, or if she has, she is such a virulent racist that it prevents her from being truthful about reality.

Once again, CRT isn’t taught in elementary schools, it’s taught in law schools. She’s conflating actual CRT theory with teacher training programs that touch on insights from CRT in order to promote equality. Its purpose is to to examine how race and racism intersect with laws and institutions. It does NOT advocate for treating individuals differently based on race, nor does it promote racism. Instead, it seeks to highlight how historical and systemic racism have shaped inequalities in society. The claim that CRT “believes racism is necessary and appropriate” is a gross mischaracterization of its purpose, and a lie.

Suggesting that CRT “disrupts America’s Founding ideals of freedom and opportunity” is also a complete distortion. CRT aims to critique how these ideals have historically not been extended to all groups equally, particularly people of color. It’s not about rejecting the ideals themselves, but about examining how these ideals have been imperfectly realized in practice.

The claim that CRT undermines values like “equality under the law” and “colorblindness” is also ridiculous. CRT critiques the notion of colorblindness by arguing that ignoring race often fails to address systemic inequalities. It suggests that being aware of race is necessary to understand and dismantle racial disparities, not to undermine equality, but to work toward genuine equality.

The language of Burke’s statement is designed to provoke fear, using terms like “disrupting” and “actively destroying.” This kind of rhetoric oversimplifies and vilifies a complex, nuanced framework, turning a legitimate academic critique of racism into something nefarious or dangerous. It implies that discussing systemic racism is somehow harmful to societal values, rather than being a way to promote greater justice and inclusion.

In short, racist horseshit.

“For example, under the Biden Administration’s proposed Title IX regulations, schools could be required to assist a child with a social or medical gender transition without parental consent or to withhold information from parents about a child’s social transition (e.g., changing their names or pronouns).” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, pages 375 and 376.)

We’ve now moved on from racist claptrap to transphobic claptrap. The claim that schools could be “required” to assist with a child’s social gender transition without parental consent or to withhold information from parents is inaccurate. The idea that schools could be “required” to assist with a child’s physical transition is a bald-faced lie.

The proposed regulations aim to ensure that students – including transgender students – are not discriminated against in schools. This could include respecting a student’s chosen name or pronouns to create a supportive environment. I’ll add here that respecting someone’s identity harms no one and costs nothing.

The parental consent issue varies by state law and school policy. Title IX’s proposed changes don’t dictate how schools handle parental consent. They focus on preventing discrimination and harassment. Some school policies, particularly in certain districts or states, may allow students to request changes to their name or pronouns without parental notification if doing so could lead to harm or hostility at home. This is meant to prioritize student safety and well-being, particularly for vulnerable students.

The claim that schools could be “required” to hide information from parents is also misleading. Schools might, in some circumstances, respect a student’s privacy or safety concerns, but this isn’t mandated in the proposed Title IX rules. Again, the focus is on preventing discriminatory treatment, not mandating secrecy.

Burke here is gravely offended by the idea that public schools SHOULDN’T DISCRIMINATE AGAINST TRANSGENDER STUDENTS, BUT SHOULD TREAT THEM RESPECTFULLY. So offended that she’s compelled here to lie about the intent of the proposed regulations.

“These statistics and others point to a social contagion in which minor children, especially girls, are attempting to make life-altering decisions using puberty blockers and other hormone treatments and even surgeries to remove or alter vital body parts. Heritage Foundation research finds that providing easier access to such treatments and surgeries without parental involvement does not reduce the suicidality of these young people and may even increase suicide rates.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, pages 377 and 378.)

“Heritage Foundation research finds…” is a red flag, considering they fabricated their research on government employees²⁹ in order to justify paying them less. This assertion, like that one, is completely wrong.

Legitimate studies have found that family and social support³⁰ are associated with reduced prevalence of suicidal thoughts and attempts in transgender youth. It should surprise no thinking person to learn that if you treat transgender kids like human beings worthy of respect, they’re less likely to kill themselves.

“Minority stressors, such as discrimination experiences, family rejection, and stigma, are commonly reported by transgender people and are associated with higher risk of suicide thoughts and attempts. These include experiences of discrimination, mistreatment, or violence in education, employment, housing, health care, in places of public accommodations, from law enforcement, and in other areas of life.”

In short, the policies Burke is proposing directly correlate with an INCREASE in suicide among transgender youth. Need more?

“Transgender people who need access to gender-affirming care, such as hormone therapy or surgical care, may experience barriers to receiving that care, including costs, lack of providers, and state laws. Over 45,000 transgender youth live in states where laws have passed or been proposed to prohibit youth from accessing gender-affirming care. Yet, gender-affirming care is associated with reduced prevalence of suicide thoughts and attempts for those who receive the care they need.”

Do you know what else qualifies as gender-affirming care? Hair plugs. Breast implants. Lip fillers. Use of Viagra and other drugs to treat erectile dysfunction. Selecting clothing based on gender identity. Wearing makeup. Shaving one’s body hair (or growing facial hair). Almost everyone engages in some form of gender-affirming care for themselves. It’s a normal social construct.

“A recent study found that transgender adults who received pubertal suppression hormone therapy as adolescents were less likely to experience suicide ideation in their lifetime.” (Turban, J. L., King, D., Carswell, J. M., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2020). Pubertal suppression for transgender youth and risk of suicidal ideation. Pediatrics, 145(2), 68-76.)

A research paper from the National Library of Medicine concludes in their abstract: “The suicide attempt rate among transgender persons ranges from 32% to 50% across the countries. Gender-based victimization, discrimination, bullying, violence, being rejected by the family, friends, and community; harassment by intimate partner, family members, police and public; discrimination and ill treatment at health-care system are the major risk factors that influence the suicidal behavior among transgender persons.” [Source]³¹

With such a preponderance of evidence against the Heritage Foundation’s conclusion, one wonders if perhaps causing suicidal ideation among transgender youth is the unspoken goal of such cruel legislation. Again, this is another example of the Heritage Foundation not being able to find ANY evidence supporting the conclusion they want, so they’ve simply fabricated their own “evidence.”

Burke goes on to mandate that no school employee or contractor shall use a name to address a student other than what’s on their birth certificate, or use pronouns that differ from a student’s biological sex on their birth certificate, without written consent from the child’s parents. Furthermore, even with written consent, she mandates that no school employee or contractor has to respect a transgender student’s name or pronouns, if “contrary to the employee or contractor’s moral convictions.” (page 378, bulleted list.) In other words, legalizing the mistreatment/harassment/disrespect of trans kids if their teachers’ “moral convictions” are that they’re bigots. This is appalling. And it should go without saying that there is nothing “moral” about convictions that dictate that you mistreat others, but I will say it nevertheless.

The idea that nobody should ever be referred to as any name other than what appears on their birth certificate is hysterical. No nicknames for anyone! Sorry, politicians who anglicize their names to appeal to the white electorate! (I’m looking right at you, Rafael “Ted” Cruz,  and Nimrata Randhawa (a.k.a. Nikki Haley). And that’s to say nothing of Addison “Mitch” McConnell, Willard “Mitt” Romney, and James Donald Bowman, (a.k.a. J.D. Vance.)

She then goes on to advocate for school choice some more, citing more “Heritage Foundation research.” She goes on to quote the Claremont Institute in the next paragraph. If they can find real evidence, they use it. If they ever cite themselves as the source of the research, you can take to the bank that it’s been completely falsified to suit their narrative.

“One egregious example of this is the extent to which accreditors have forced colleges and universities, many of them faith-based institutions, to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion policies that conflict with federal civil rights laws, state laws, and the institutional mission and culture of the schools.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 384, paragraph 2.)

It’s a little funny to me here that she’s suggesting that the missions of faith-based colleges are fundamentally at odds with the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion. That’s…quite an admission. She goes on to mandate that higher education institutions should still be allowed to be accredited even if they blatantly discriminate on the basis of race or gender. Then she doubles down on the idea that being forced to treat everyone equally is *really* offensive to religious institutions. Christians, are you hearing this? Does this represent your beliefs? I find it alarming that she’s couching all religious institutions (and religious people, as it follows), as bigots (or at least protecting their right to be bigots, if they want to be).

Burke then goes back to arguing for moving student loans to the private sector (another swing in that particular opinion).

“The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which prioritizes government and public sector work over private sector employment, should be terminated.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 386, paragraph 6.)

No more student loan forgiveness for government employees! Nor for anyone else, either, but I guess particularly not government employees. I spoke too soon above when I said she didn’t mention University fraud as being a basis for student loan forgiveness – she does mention it here as an acceptable discharge reason.

This part is interesting: “Educational institutions can claim a religious exemption with the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education from the strictures of Title IX. In 2016, the Obama Administration published on the Department of Education’s website a list of colleges that had applied for the exemption. This “list of shame” of faith-based colleges, as it came to be known, has since been archived on ED’s website, still publicly available. The President should issue an executive order removing the archived list and preventing such a list from being published in the future.” (Project 2025, Section 3.1: Department of Education, Lindsey Burke, page 389, paragraph 6.)

Apparently, religious schools could always apply for Title IX exemptions to be bigots if they so desired, but they were published on a “list of shame” for doing so. Burke mandates eliminating this list, therefore reducing transparency about which higher education institutions applied to be legally racist/sexist/transphobic. If I were going to pay good money for an education, I think that’s something I’d like to know about the schools I’m considering.