Now We Care About Children?

Our nation does not care about its children.

How do I know this? Because we use children as props when it's convenient. I'm not just talking about politicians—although they are some of the worst offenders. Media pundits, paid influencers, and activists will pay lip service to the well-being of our nation's children, but their actions say something different. This is evident from the fallout over dismantling the Department of Education.

Last week, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at disabling the Department of Education. The President cannot eliminate the Department without congressional approval, but he can gut it from the inside, rendering it practically useless. Imagine an empty shoe box with a Post-It note on the outside that reads, "Department of Education."

Cue the outrage—politicians, activists, and media outlets feigned horror. "Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the Republicans in Congress are taking a chainsaw to health care and education and veterans services and infrastructure right now," said Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. "The Trump administration's illegal cuts to the Department of Education are an attack on our educators, our schools, and our students," New York Attorney General Letitia James quipped in a statement. Al Jazeera, a Qatari state-funded news agency, insinuated that Trump was using a group of children as visual props during the ceremony. (Though they didn't have a problem when Biden celebrated his Juneteenth Executive Order around a group of black people.)

“And what about past education policy failures? Remember the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?”

Unlike many of my conservative peers, I believe in public education. Every child—poor or rich, beige, olive, tan, or brown—deserves a formal education. But federal control has never been the answer.

The Department of Education has failed to improve outcomes. What started as a four-person department in 1867 by President Andrew Johnson quickly raised concerns of government overreach—and was shut down just three years later. When President Jimmy Carter resurrected it in 1979, it was essentially a political move to appease the largest labor union in the country, the National Education Association, and boost his sub-30% approval ratings.

Furthermore, support for the DOE was lukewarm at best. It narrowly passed through Congress. Years later, Democrats, like New York Representative Benjamin Rosenthal, admitted they went along with the idea because of "not wanting to embarrass the President." Even the pro-Democrat newspaper, The Washington Post, published criticism of the move.

Carter lived long enough to see what a bloated bureaucratic monstrosity his plan became. Ironically, upon signing the Department of Education Act in 1979, he said, "[The] Primary responsibility for education should rest with those States, localities, and private institutions that have made our Nation's educational system the best in the world..."

A centralized government blob on the Potomac River was never about the children. The best outcomes happen when parents and local communities are empowered. A fifth grader in rural Kansas, a special needs student in Chicago, and a gifted eighth grader in Seattle all have different needs. The Department of Education treats them all the same. Local control allows for nuance and accountability.

Let's get back to the critics feigning horror. If Donald Trump is attacking "our educators, our schools, and our students," as Letitia James claims, then why do she and so many Democrats support abortion? Abortion is the willful killing of a child. They encourage mothers to kill their children in the womb and want to impede the child's education if they make it out of the womb alive.

What also hurts children is growing up in a single-parent household. From higher incarceration rates to lower test scores, children raised without both parents present have a tougher road ahead of them. Yet many of the same voices pushing welfare programs ignore the way they often disincentivize fatherhood.

And what about past education policy failures? Remember the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001? The bill, first proposed by President George W. Bush, financially incentivized schools to pass failing students to the next grade level. The results? Today, 54% of Americans read below a 6th-grade level. The NCLB bill received bipartisan support in the Senate—45 Republicans and 42 Democrats. Where was the outrage then?

Then, consider illegal immigration. Young children are sent to cross our borders by criminal drug cartels and sex traffickers. Many die on their trek into the country. Couple that with the poor enforcement of child labor laws. Since 2019, we have seen an 88% increase in child labor violations. Last year, a 16-year-old illegal alien was killed working at a slaughterhouse in Hattiesburg, MS. Yet the "America is a nation of immigrants" crowd stays silent.

If protecting our children is a priority, why are we force-feeding them into the high-risk, high-stakes world of athletics? Children participating in athletics is a net positive, but many parents treat their sons and daughters as lottery tickets. Most will never achieve collegiate athletic stardom, let alone professionally. But we pour millions, sometimes billions, into high school sports facilities. We allow gambling on high school football and basketball games. Now, high school athletes are getting NIL deals. We hand young, immature children money, fame, and pressure—and act surprised when it goes wrong.

The sad state of affairs is that our culture doesn't give a damn about children. We treat our children like political props to pass legislation, like meal tickets to get more welfare money from the government, like a "clump of cells," or racehorses hoping they make it big.

Kids don't need the excesses of a secular, materialistic society. They need two parents, faith, love, guidance, and a quality education without all the bureaucratic muck. Until our society gets serious about those things, miss me with performative outrage over the Department of Education.