"More Fake News!": White House Denies WSJ Report On Executive Order To Shut Down Education Dept

(Update: 1250ET): The White House has denied a Wall Street Journal report which states that President Trump "is expected to issue an executive order as soon as Thursday aimed at abolishing the Education Department," calling the report "More Fake News!" - and adding that "President Trump is NOT signing an Executive Order on the Department of Education today."

https://x.com/PressSec/status/...on-department-report



That said, Leavitt's comment is also sleight of hand - as the report's lede was that a draft of the order had been created - and that it was to be signed on Thursday. Leavitt only refuted the part about Trump signing it, while we know Trump has discussed eliminating the department.

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...on-department-report

^^^ He didn't sign the order today. Nothing is said about some future date.

quote:

Originally posted by cooger:

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
https://x.com/charliekirk11/st.../1897482582692102614

Unfortunately RE: dissolveing Department of Education

https://youtu.be/cx827tYXVhM?si=83WNLm87RVlNIPQT

Not really related to Trump but the idea keeps being thrown around that cuts will affect poor kids. Specifically they will not have enough food to eat if the schools don’t provide free lunches. Here in KY, and I’m sure other places as well, schools now provide free lunches during the summer. Some local schools will even deliver sack lunches to designated spots in the community. On top of this, there are programs to send kids home with a bag of food on the weekend so they have something to eat until they come back to school Monday.

This is a false narrative being used as a scare tactic.
The Department of Education does not provide this assistance.
The USDA is where the program and funds come from.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp

Here comes the recission/impoundment case we've been hoping for since 1974...

Obama Judge Indefinitely Blocks Trump Admin Funding Freeze, Says White House Has 'Put Itself Above Congress' And Undermined Democracy

A Rhode Island US District Judge has indefinitely blocked President Trump's freeze on federal grants and loans, arguing in his ruling that the White House had "put itself above Congress" and undermined democracy.

In a Thursday ruling, Judge John McConnell Jr., an Obama appointee - prohibited the Trump administration from freezing or otherwise impeding the disbursement of appropriated federal funds, WSJ reports.

The decision is a victory for Trump critics who say he has trampled on Congress’s authority in his effort to cut federal spending and overhaul agencies.

McConnell’s order follows a similar one issued by a different federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 25. The judge had previously issued a temporary restraining order, which on Thursday he converted into an injunction, a more permanent form of relief.

"The Executive’s categorical freeze of appropriated and obligated funds fundamentally undermines the distinct constitutional roles of each branch of our government," wrote McConnell.

"Here, the Executive put itself above Congress," he continued. "It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending."

Of note - McConnell was very active in Democratic politics before becoming a judge - serving 14 years as treasurer of the Rhode Island Democratic State Committee, and donating heavily to Democratic political candidates.

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...-white-house-has-put

quote:

Originally posted by bronicabill:

quote:

Originally posted by lizardman_u:
The disrespectful Representative Al Green was censured this morning due to his disgusting behavior during the President's speech.

He is the first Congressman to be escorted from a presidential speech in the history of our nation.

So what??? And I ask this with all respect and sincerity... what good does it REALLY do??? The POS stands there in "the well" while the writ of censure is read to him. That's it??? Nothing more? If he doesn't actually LOSE something, be it a significant financial penalty, loss of a vote on upcoming bills, or SOMETHING that causes him to think twice about ever acting that way again, what difference does it make?

Being escorted out by the sergeant at arms would at least be embarrassing for someone with a sense of decency, but this POS has none and wore it like a badge of honor!

What am I missing here?

Except when he went to the Well about 20 others went with him to create a further disruption (singing), and not letting the Speaker of the House even read the censure.

So yet again the left making themselves to be laughing stock.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Obama Judge Indefinitely Blocks Trump Admin Funding Freeze, Says White House Has 'Put Itself Above Congress' And Undermined Democracy

A Rhode Island US District Judge has indefinitely blocked President Trump's freeze on federal grants and loans, arguing in his ruling that the White House had "put itself above Congress" and undermined democracy.

In a Thursday ruling, Judge John McConnell Jr., an Obama appointee - prohibited the Trump administration from freezing or otherwise impeding the disbursement of appropriated federal funds, WSJ reports...

Except there is no appropriation for FY2025. The Congress has not yet passed a budget, despite the fact we are well into 2Q FY2025 (FY2025 started 10/01/2024).

All spending now is under a Continuing Resolution (CR) allowing expenditures up to that in the FY2024 appropriations. I do not believe a CR mandates such expenditures stating:

quote:

Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary [emphasis added], at a rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2024 and under the authority and conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2024, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the following appropriations Acts:

quote:

I do not believe a CR mandates such expenditures stating:

Sec. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary

Good point.
This will soon be going before SCOTUS.

quote:

Originally posted by cooger:

Not really related to Trump but the idea keeps being thrown around that cuts will affect poor kids. Specifically they will not have enough food to eat if the schools don’t provide free lunches.

Almost every federal program could fit that kind of construct: some of our people benefit from a program, and without it they will suffer to some extent.

The thing is, this country is beyond broke. Which means real spending must be reduced, and that means there will be pain.

The national debt is over $36.5 trillion. Debt per citizen is over $107k, and debt per taxpayer (who are the people actually paying the costs) is over $323k. Federal annual tax revenue is $4.4 trillion.

So let's convert that to a typical family with an income of $80k per year (according to the internet). Using the same ratio as the US government, that family would have a debt of $1.5 million! (Their annual interest on that debt at 4.5% would be $67k).

That family might find ways to overcome the situation, but there will be pain. They will be eating oatmeal and peanut butter, washed down with tap water. They'll be riding a used bicycle for transportation, or riding the city bus. Their clothing will come from a thrift shop. They'll live in a small run down apartment in a sad part of town.

This country is in that same hole. Things have to change for the worse if they are to ever get better.

The alternative is our government, our currency, and our economy completely fail. We can have less pain now or hugely more pain later.

quote:

free lunches

This is the point of this whole exercise. There is no such thing.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

On October 17, 1979, US President Jimmy Carter signed legislation establishing the US Department of Education.
But close enough.

I guess I should have been more specific. Yes, he signed the legislation in October of 1979, but the DOE did not open for business until about May of 1980.


.

I watched the confirmation hearings for Dr. Marty Makary to be head of FDA.

I had previously watched the hearings for the nominee for NIH head, Jay Bhattacharya.
I have very high hopes for Dr. Jay; but he didn't come across that great in the hearings; he's a rather shy, modest person, didn't seek out a fight but didn't shy away from it when they came at him.

Anyway, Marty Makary was more impressive in the hearings; clearly more knowledgeable and responsive to the senators on both sides; careful not to overpromise, but vowed to "review", "assess", and "stick with the data". My daughter-in-law works for the FDA, and she's been terrified about losing her job with a second baby on the way, and our son currently unemployed. I would think that his testimony would be reassuring. He wants to chart a new path with greater transparency, more pro-active role for FDA. He had nothing to do with recent RIF's of probationary employees.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
He "wanted to", he called for its elimination, but did he actually do anything?

In fairness to Reagan, he never had a Republican Congress. He did have a majority in the Senate for his first six years. But his 8 years consisted of dealing with Tip O'Neil and Jim Wright in the House.

Jim Wright was the infamous Texas Democrat that tried to run Southwest Airlines into the ground with the Wright Amendment- he was as openly crooked as they come.


.

quote:

but the DOE did not open for business until about May of 1980.

Interesting. That was the month/year I graduated from college. The end of my time in education.

Just an FYI

“DOE” means Department of Energy

Not Department of Education

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Just an FYI

“DOE” means Department of Energy

Not Department of Education

While I confess that when I saw the references to DOE the first thing that came to mind was Department of Energy, I can’t help wondering what the initials for the Department of Education are if not DOE. Is it possible that the initials or acronym DOE is ambiguous and needs context for one to be sure which DOE is being discussed?

Maybe they write it as DoE for Dept. of Education? Or maybe that's what they use for Dept. of Energy.

Gotta be some kind of difference.

I may have seen DoEd

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
I may have seen DoEd

President Trump is clarifying the situation. Soon DOE will unequivocally be Dept. of Energy because Dept. of Education is defunct.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pipe Smoker,

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
I may have seen DoEd

President Trump is clarifying the situation. Soon DOE will unequivocally be Dept. of Energy because Dept. of Education is defunct.

We need a thumbs up emoticon on here...