With the Democrats’ takeover of Congress, time has run out on eliminating the Department of Education—not that this was possible without removing the Senate filibuster—or making any other significant legislative changes. But, just as the Trump administration has been able to slash personnel and shift many of the department’s functions to other agencies, many other reforms can still be achieved by the executive branch acting alone. Here are some suggestions:
1. Make universities answer for breaking their free-speech promises.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
Strengthen the DoEd’s grant regulations to establish a practical complaint and enforcement process for public universities that violate the First Amendment and private universities that disregard their published commitments to free expression. Students and faculty shouldn’t have to finance years of litigation to enjoy the expressive freedoms their universities promise. Enforcement should address speech codes, discriminatory security fees, selective recognition of student groups, and administrative acquiescence in the heckler’s veto. Private religious institutions should retain their ability to define their missions while accurately disclosing the speech protections they offer. Meaningful consequences would give trustees a reason to intervene before the next disinvitation or disciplinary proceeding becomes a national controversy.
2. Protect Jewish students while restoring a clear boundary between harassment and protected speech.
Adopt a notice-and-comment Title VI rule that clearly defines actionable discriminatory harassment, protects constitutionally protected expression, and specifies universities’ obligations to address discriminatory exclusion and unequal enforcement of campus rules. Universities have too often punished controversial opinions while tolerating intimidation, obstruction, and exclusion. Jewish students should be able to attend class, enter campus buildings, and participate in student organizations without ancestry- or faith-based discrimination. At the same time, disagreement about Israel, immigration, or any other political subject cannot itself establish a civil-rights violation. A durable rule would make enforcement more predictable and prevent the same legal machinery from being turned against disfavored speakers under a future administration.
3. Follow racial preferences beyond the admissions office.
Launch a coordinated Title VI enforcement initiative targeting unlawful racial eligibility restrictions and preferences in scholarships, fellowships, internships, mentoring programs, and other educational benefits, including programs administered through affiliated organizations. Ending racial preferences in admissions leaves substantial discrimination untouched if universities distribute other opportunities by race. Moving a program into an affiliated foundation or relabeling it doesn’t resolve discrimination in its actual operation. Investigations should examine eligibility rules, selection practices, and institutional relationships rather than treating every demographic disparity as proof of wrongdoing. Concrete cases would establish that equal treatment governs the full educational enterprise.
4. Make K-12 religious opt-outs usable without requiring every family to sue.
Establish a joint DoEd–Justice Department initiative to implement Mahmoud v. Taylor—the 2025 Supreme Court ruling giving parents opt-outs from instruction relating to gender/sexuality—through model procedures, a parent-complaint referral process, and coordinated enforcement using each department’s existing authority. A constitutional right provides little practical protection if parents discover objectionable instruction only after it occurs or must hire counsel to secure an accommodation. Model procedures should provide timely notice, straightforward requests, and alternative assignments without academic penalties. They should also prevent schools from demanding intrusive theological explanations or imposing procedural hurdles that defeat the accommodation. This approach would protect families of different faiths while leaving curriculum decisions to state and local officials.
5. Open the teacher-training pipeline to intellectual competition.
Use authorized teacher-preparation grants and accreditation oversight to expand rigorous alternative training pathways and challenge ideological litmus tests in federally supported educator preparation. Higher-education reform will have limited reach if education schools continue supplying classrooms with teachers trained to treat ideological conformity as professional competence. Candidates should be evaluated on subject knowledge, instructional skill, and their ability to teach students from different backgrounds. Competitive grants should support strong alternatives, including partnerships with effective schools and programs serving midcareer entrants. Accreditation oversight should scrutinize requirements that make assent to contested political beliefs a condition of entering the profession.
6. Build lasting centers for constitutional study and serious debate.
Establish a competitive priority within suitable existing discretionary grant programs for university centers that teach constitutional government, cultivate civil disagreement, and maintain governance protections for intellectual independence. Universities need institutions capable of sustaining serious debate after a visiting speaker leaves campus. Well-designed centers could support courses, faculty development, visiting scholars, and sustained engagement with competing constitutional and political traditions. Awards should turn on academic quality, open inquiry, and credible protections against ideological capture. A two-year investment could help establish programs that attract lasting university and private support.
7. Make OCR’s own procedures a model of the rule of law.
Adopt binding procedures requiring timely investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, clear notice of alleged violations, a meaningful opportunity to respond, public explanations of resolutions, and settlement obligations tied to identified violations with defined termination criteria. An investigation that remains open indefinitely can punish an institution without establishing that it violated the law. Vague settlements can also entrench expensive bureaucracies and ideological training requirements that survive long after the original dispute. Clear procedures would improve relief for actual victims while requiring the OCR to substantiate its demands. Institutionalizing those limits would help prevent future administrations from using civil-rights enforcement to impose political orthodoxy.
A lame-duck presidency that just lost decisively in the midterms doesn’t have to mean either forgetting about a policy agenda or having to push the constitutional envelope to achieve it. Plenty can be accomplished in the next two years—at the Department of Education and beyond—through executive orders, regulations, guidance, grant priorities, and enforcement.