On the latest episode of Nat Malkus’s The Report Card podcast, Andy Rotherham and Rick Hess offered a helpful way to think about the present state of federal education policy. They described it as running on two very different tracks at once—a metaphor that goes a long way toward explaining the disarray and dysfunction coming out of Washington these days.
On track one is an ascendant populist faction—led by figures aligned with the Heritage Foundation and other right-leaning groups influential in the current administration. These are the folks calling the shots, mostly through the lens of culture war. Their approach to education policymaking is clear: don’t back down, lean into the fight, and use every lever available to go on offense—particularly against perceived ideological enemies (or those deemed insufficiently doctrinaire). Whether it’s reinterpreting federal civil rights law, going after elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia, or launching federal investigations into states, schools, and districts, the through-line is political confrontation.
Track two is where traditional conservatives ride—policy veterans and institutionalists with deep knowledge of the system, trying to translate the populist energy into something coherent, or at least manageable, for people at the state and local level trying to improve America’s schools. This group includes serious and capable leaders like Penny Schwinn, Trump’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of Education; Kirsten Baesler, Trump’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education; and the Fordham Institute’s Amber Northern, a respected education researcher recently brought on in a temporary capacity to help reform the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences.
The recent confirmation hearing for Schwinn demonstrated where the two tracks might cross—and how easily they could cause a crash. Schwinn presented herself as pragmatic and results-oriented, in line with her admirable work as Tennessee’s education chief. Yet she faced a coordinated pre-hearing pressure campaign from right-wing hardliners who questioned her ideological purity—levying spurious claims that she tacitly endorsed critical race theory, allowed porn in schools, and pushed intrusive child well-being checks during the pandemic. The hearing itself was relatively uneventful, suggesting those concerns may have been largely resolved behind the scenes. But the episode served as a reminder of the treacherous terrain that reformers like Schwinn must navigate—caught between ideological jihadists demanding unwavering fealty and pragmatic right-of-center leaders focused on governing and improvement.
Even so, the “normie” Republicans have logged some quiet wins. Chief among these was the Trump administration’s move to boost funding for the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) by $60 million in 2025, and its proposal to do the same in next year’s budget—marking the first increase to CSP in years. Similarly, buried deep within the administration’s budget proposal was an affirmative statement in support of statewide assessments. These are modest moves, but in the current climate, they amount to concrete signals that some corners of the administration are still fighting for traditional reform priorities.
The split, however, is real, made worse by ambiguity from the president himself. At a White House ceremony earlier this spring, Trump signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. The event had all the trappings of Trumpian theater (flanked by schoolchildren sitting at desks), but even he seemed unsure of the script. “It sounds strange, doesn’t it?” he said aloud. “Department of Education. We’re going to eliminate it.” For a president who rarely hedges, it was a remarkably tentative moment—less a firm policy pronouncement than a half-hearted nod to his base. The moment highlighted one of the central challenges of the current dynamic: not that a clear education agenda is being derailed, but that no real agenda exists—just a stream of improvisation, symbolism, and reaction.
It would be one thing if these two camps were jockeying for position under a president with a clear vision for education. But unlike his long-held views on trade or immigration, Trump has never shown much interest in education policy beyond using it to fight elite culture. His positions shift constantly—sometimes within the same day—depending on the context or the crowd. To be fair, the previous administration wasn’t much better when it comes to education vision and agenda. President Biden rarely engaged on education and effectively outsourced the agenda to the teachers unions, adopting their priorities wholesale. His administration was dominated by ultra-progressives and union allies, with Secretary Cardona proving all but invisible. In both cases, education policy has taken a back seat—used by Trump mainly as a cudgel, and under Biden, handed over to unions and ideological allies with little regard for effectiveness or results.
The result is a federal education agenda defined less by what it builds than by how precariously it stands. Populists may be setting the tone, but their confrontational style makes it difficult to see how their efforts—some of which tap into legitimate frustrations—will endure once they’re no longer at the switch. At the same time, traditional conservatives are trying to execute serious (if modest) policy work in what Hess aptly described as a Category 4 political hurricane—doing their jobs amid tumult, volatility, and shifting winds from the top. Without presidential clarity or commitment, even well-crafted efforts risk being swept away by a future Democratic administration.
Our country can ill afford this dynamic. It’s been nearly a decade since the executive branch offered steady leadership on education. In that absence, two tracks have emerged: one defined by grievance and spectacle, the other trying to impose order and coherence. But with loyalty to Trump as the coin of the realm, the second track is left chasing the first: reactive, overmatched, and increasingly irrelevant. If this continues, the whole enterprise risks going off the rails.
