Education Overhaul & RFK Jr.’s Bold Moves | 3.7.25

The Department of Education has long been getting failing grades.

Now Trump is considering closing the book on the DOE.

Let the states run the schools.

And I'll tell you, you'll see something, it's going to blow your mind.

It'll be run so well.

How does President Trump plan to accomplish this?

And will he need help from Congress?

I'm Daily Wire Editor-in-Chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe.

It's Friday, March 7th, and this is Morning Wire. RFK Jr.
takes the reins of HHS and launches a series of ambitious initiatives. We're going to be honest with the American people for the first time in history about all of the tests and all the studies, what we know, what we don't.
And the Supreme Court deals the Trump administration a setback on slashing USAID funding. It basically means that the Supreme Court isn't going to parachute in and stop what's happening in the lower court.
Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned.
We have the news you need to know. Peak performance will be on full display this Saturday, March 8th with UFC 313.
Pereira versus Ankalaev. Brought to you in part by Jeremy's Razors, the official razor partner of the UFC.
A damn good shave for people who know men are men and act like it. Catch the fight this Saturday night on ESPN Pay-Per-View.
Buy the razor that's in the fight for masculinity. Shave boldly, live freely.
Order now at jeremysrazors.com. President Trump is reportedly preparing a groundbreaking executive order that would dismantle the education department and return education to the state level.
Daily Wire senior editor Cabot Phillips is here to break it down. So Cabot, a major order looming that could transform the education system.
What do we know so far? Yeah, President Trump campaigned on a promise to dismantle the DOE, but there were plenty of folks who questioned how serious he actually was. Republican presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan have vowed to do away with the department, saying education should be controlled at the local level, but it's still there, nearly 50 years after President Carter created it.
That soon could be changing, though. According to numerous reports, President Trump is preparing to sign an executive order that would direct Education Secretary Linda McMahon to, quote, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the education department.

The White House has been quick to remind folks that the DOE doesn't actually do any educating. Their primary focus is to set education policies, enforce laws related to education, and most importantly, it allocates billions in federal funding to school districts and universities around the country.
Trump has vowed to cut off federal funding for districts and colleges that promote, quote, critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content. This move could make that process easier.
And what's Trump's main argument for why a move like this is needed? Well, the White House's main point is that the federal government is simply inefficient at allocating funds and that state and local governments have a better idea of how to run their schools than bureaucrats in Washington. They say the education system was doing just fine before 1980 when states were largely running things themselves.
As the draft of this order puts it, quote, the experiment of controlling American education through federal programs and dollars and the unaccountable bureaucrats these programs and dollars support has failed our children, our teachers, and our families.

From what we're hearing, key functions of the DOE,

like their student loan programs and civil rights office,

would likely be taken up by the Treasury and Justice Departments.

For more, we spoke with Dr. Larry Arnn.

Here's what he had to say.

They just have an interest in getting the kid and getting the money.

You know, good institutions do have a big interest in their students succeeding,

but in this case, they don't have a financial interest in that.

Thank you. the kid and getting the money.
You know, good institutions do have a big interest in their students succeeding, but in this case, they don't have a financial interest in that. Most of the money that goes into education is state and local money, but this money comes to the states and localities as free money.
And so all you got to do is do what they say. You don't have to tax your own people for it.
You tax everybody for it. And so that is a perverse incentive.
So what would it take to make this happen? Yeah, ultimately, Trump will need congressional approval to officially abolish the department. But in the meantime, he can hand off most of their duties to other departments.
For their part, Democrats and teachers unions have vowed to oppose the effort in court. They argue it will overwhelm local school districts and create confusion around the country.
Now, pivoting a bit, there was some big news yesterday about tariffs. Trump delayed again.
What's the latest there? So those tariffs on Canada and Mexico were supposed to go into effect last month, but Trump again paused tariffs on the vast majority of imports from the two countries, saying they have until April 2nd. That's when reciprocal tariffs on all the countries go into effect.
According to a statement from Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, quote, hopefully Mexico and Canada will have done a good enough job on fentanyl that this part of the conversation will be off the table, and we will move just to reciprocal tariff conversation. Here's Trump to that point, speaking yesterday about a conversation he had with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum.
We had a very good conversation. Also, we discussed drugs, and they've been working much harder lately.
Do you notice that on people coming in and drugs? And we've made tremendous progress on both. Now, Democrats say Trump reversed course here because he was panicking over the stock market, which has taken a beating this week on tariff concerns.

For their part, the White House has long argued that Trump views tariffs as a means not only of increasing revenue, but also of forcing other countries to the negotiating table.

It appears he is now giving Canada and Mexico a little more time to secure their borders

and cut the flow of fentanyl or else.

Well, it's a gamble, but hopefully it pays off. Cabot, thanks for reporting.
Anytime. Right now, Renewal by Anderson is offering a free in-home on quality, affordable windows and doors for no money down, no monthly payments, and no interest for up to a year.
Text wire to 400-400 for a free consultation to save $379 off every window and $779 off every door. These savings won't last long, so be sure to check it out by texting WIRE to 400-400.
Texting privacy policy and terms and conditions posted at textplan.us. Texting enrolls for recurring automated text marketing messages, message and data rates may apply.
Reply stop to opt out. Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. issued a call to action this week over a measles outbreak in Texas.
The secretary has made several other vaccine-related moves at HHS, while his Maha movement takes aim at Coca-Cola and other sugary drinks. Here to discuss is Daily Wire reporter Amanda Presta-Giacomo.
Hey, Amanda. So let's start with RFK addressing this measles outbreak in an op-ed for Fox this week that caused a lot of buzz online.
What did he say there? Hey, John. Yeah, so Kennedy said that this outbreak in Texas must elicit a call to action for all of us to affirm our commitment to public health.
Now, there have been a total of 159 confirmed cases of measles in the state since late January. 22 people have been hospitalized, and there's been one death of a school-aged child.
Most of these infections have impacted children in the Mennonite population. Now, specifically, Kennedy said in the op-ed that he's harnessing HHS to support Texas communities and the state health department by making the measles, mumps, and rubella, or MMR vaccine readily available.
HHS has sent 2,000 doses of the vaccine to West Texas. Kennedy also said that he's focused on educating parents on treatments post-infection and nutrition.
Here's a secretary on Fox News. What we're trying to do is really to restore faith in government and to make sure that we are there to help them with their needs and not particularly to dictate what they ought to be doing.
Now, as you noted, Kennedy's op-ed caused a bit of a firestorm online and reactions were all over the place. Some folks on the left said RFK wasn't pushing the MMR vaccine enough, while others on the right said that Kennedy's push for the vaccine felt like a betrayal.
But taking the temperature of the Maha movement leaders, they seemed to think that RFK's op-ed was actually in line with their cause, allowing parents the accessibility and option for vaccination while also expanding guidance on treatment and emphasizing the need for a healthy diet to protect against most chronic and infectious illnesses. That's a mixed reaction to this, maybe unsurprisingly there.
Right. Now, RFK has made some other vaccine-related moves at HHS over this last week or two.
Fill us in on those steps. Yes, a lot going on here.
So Kennedy has indicated that he'll effectively be reviewing the childhood vaccination schedule. As the head of the Maha Commission, Kennedy said he'll investigate vaccines, as well as pesticides, food additives, microplastics, and antidepressants to see if they contribute to the rise of chronic illness.
RFK has also halted the CDC's wild-to-mild campaign promoting the flu vaccination. Kennedy said he wants advertisements going forward to promote the idea of informed consent in vaccine decision-making.
That would include giving people more information about the adverse effects associated with vaccines. Also, citing conflicts of interest, Kennedy is preparing to remove several members of the external committee that advises the FDA and CDC on vaccine approvals and other key public health decisions.
Recommendations from that committee, known as the ACIP, they're almost always followed by HHS, so that could impact the childhood vaccination schedule as well. RFK has postponed the ACIP's first panel to, quote,

accommodate public comment in advance of that meeting.

So several initiatives underway.

And shifting gears a bit to the Maha movement's impact on food and drinks,

a lot of focus on that.

What's the latest there?

Yeah, we're seeing a stronger push to limit sugary and highly processed food and drink options

for government food benefits called SNAP or food stamps. Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for example, she's looking to restrict some of these less healthy options, including a favorite of President Donald Trump's Coca-Cola.
Lawmakers in Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Texas, and Wyoming are also looking to make similar pushes. RFK himself has called sugary drinks like Coca-Cola poison.

However, Trump might be a harder sell on this. He's a populist to his core,

and he knows how unpopular restrictions or bans can be. Not to mention, the president loves Diet

Coke so much, he had a button installed on his desk in the Oval Office to summon a can multiple

times a day. Sort of reminds me of that photo of RFK surrounded by all that McDonald's on Trump

Force One. Yes, so uncomfortable.

Yeah.

Amanda, thanks so much for reporting. You're welcome.
The Trump administration's efforts to cut costs and weed out waste has hit a setback this week when the Supreme Court ruled against its request to block a lower court order related to $2 billion for USAID contractors. Joining us now to discuss is Jessica Levinson, professor at Loyola Law School and host of the Passing Judgment podcast.
Jessica, thank you so much for joining us. Yeah, I'm happy to.
So we just had this 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court against the Trump administration's request to block this lower court order. Can you explain what this ruling means? Yeah, what we're talking about here isn't very broadly, can the Trump administration push pause on foreign aid? What we're talking about here is something much, much narrower.
It's a district court judge's temporary decision, a TRO, saying to the Trump administration, pay $2 billion of money that's for work that was already completed prior to the Trump administration. Now, absolutely, this is a part of a bigger case that deals with whether or not the Trump administration has the power to push pause either temporarily or long term on foreign aid.
But this particular Supreme Court decision is really much narrower. There's a lot more kind of weediness with respect to what type of order was appealed and issues like sovereign immunity, but I think the basics are the Supreme Court is not going to get involved in an emergency basis right now.
Justice Alito warned in his dissent that this ruling could give, quote, a single district court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction the unchecked power to compel the government of the U.S. to pay out billions.
Are there larger precedent issues at play here, or is this, do you think, an overstatement? Justice Alito brought up a couple of points, and you pointed out one of them with respect to the power of a federal judge to say, you have to pay this money. And what Justice Alito felt is that the order that was being appealed, which is, again, a temporary restraining order, and is typically not appealable, he said that actually should be viewed as a preliminary injunction, which could be appealed.
He also said there's important issues here dealing with sovereign immunity and whether or not this case could even proceed and who's likely to succeed. So is this a case where the Supreme Court has set new precedent, laid down new legal standards? I would say it's not.
This is a short order by the court that says your emergency appeal for relief is not granted. Got it.
Now, broadening out a bit, what other legal fronts is the Trump administration battling on in terms of cost-cutting initiatives it's trying to implement? Well, many, many. So there are so many different executive actions and so many different lawsuits with respect to those executive actions.
I think what I would do is call out a few things for people to think about. The big question in a number of these cases where the Trump administration is trying to freeze funds, or maybe it's to fire people, or maybe it's to remove certain federal employees or reorganize agencies.
The question is, does any president have the power to do that? And those are big and deep questions that at some point are going to get to the Supreme Court. And then there are the initial questions in a lot of these suits, which aren't ultimately, can a president do X, but did this president go about trying to do that in the right way? For instance, is this particular executive order so vague that people don't know what to do? Or is there a different agency that had to implement this executive order? So there's both these kind of procedural questions, which are serious.
And then there's the big kind of substantive on the merits questions of who, if anyone in the executive branch has the power to implement these actions. Well, it seems those substantive questions about the executive branch's authority will be coming to a head sooner than later.
Jessica, thank you so much for coming on. Yeah, I'm happy to.