Trump Moves to Make Education Reform Stick

Rep. John Garamendi says giving away the Department of Education’s headquarters will make the agency harder to rebuild. Precisely.

Editor’s Note: The following statement was originally published by the National Association of Scholars on June 15, 2026. It is crossposted here with permission.


Congressman John Garamendi’s office issued a press release on July 14, bemoaning the Trump administration’s plans to pass on the Department of Education (ED) building in Washington to the Department of Energy. Rep. Garamandi is quoted as saying: 

By handing the Department of Education’s building over to another agency, they are taking another step toward their goal of permanently dismantling the Department of Education.

If you lose the building, you make it significantly more difficult to rebuild the Department’s staffing and operations in the future. This isn’t just about office space—it’s about whether we preserve the ability to rebuild the Department of Education for future generations.

I will always fight to ensure our children receive the best education possible. Today’s vote only further proves that Republicans and President Trump would rather invest in more nuclear weapons than in our nation’s schools.

Well, yes. The ED has been a blight on American education, and the Trump administration, unsurprisingly, is keenly aware of the importance of real estate for policy. The National Association of Scholars (NAS) delightedly endorses the Trump administration’s marvelously astute work to make permanent the reduction-to-elimination of the ED.

We note, by the by, that the Congressman’s press release recycles one of the more hackneyed bits of education establishment polemic, that the federal government spends more on nuclear weapons than it does on education. Naturally so: the large majority of public education spending comes from the states and the localities. The federal government focuses on its appropriate sphere, which includes national defense. The states and localities can spend so much on education because they don’t have to budget for their own nuclear weapons programs.

Given the challenges America faces from China, Russia, and Iran, and the spread of drones and artificial intelligence (AI) to state and non-state actors, we are, in any case, probably going to see rising federal expenditures for the military in the next few years. This is a good thing in itself. And, given the useless-to-disastrous results of federal education expenditures in the last few generations, we will be just about guaranteed to get more bang for our bucks.

Confected outrage is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. Education reformers and all Americans should be happy to note that the Trump administration has done unprecedented, creative, and effective work to permanently reduce our federal education bureaucracy. Not least is the disincentive for future activists and paper-pushers to sign up for a career in the ED; now they know, viscerally, that homelessness can happen to you.

With any luck, would-be educrats will do America a favor and choose a different line of work.

Follow the National Association of Scholars on X.

  1. Memory is that the LBJ building is not the only building in DC that ED had, there was at least one more and I want to say two — what happened to those?

    But as to nuclear weapons, no one’s going to be building or researching them at 400 Pennsylvania Ave. — for three very basic reasons.

    First, the building is set up as an office building not a research lab. And while it’s possible to convert 19th century, research labs into administrative buildings, and many colleges have done that, it’s virtually impossible go the other way.
    Particularly if you’re going to be 21st-century safety standards, even without the added issue of radioactive materials.

    Let’s just take something simple like hoods and related exhaust fans, a requirement for even a high school chemistry laboratory. Does a good congressman have any idea of what would be involved in cutting apart that building to install the related ductwork? And that’s just to meet the requirements for a high school teacher demonstrating chemistry to 14-year-olds.

    Second, as a congressman, I’m sure he understands the concept of building security. Look at what was necessary to secure the US Congress and how does he propose to secure the LBJ building that doesn’t even have a perimeter around it? (This is why the FBI wants to move to Maryland, and absent all the other issues with the FBI, this actually is a good idea.)

    It’s also always possible for something to go wrong in a research lab, which is why you really don’t want it jammed into the middle of a congested city that you would never ever be able to evacuate in time.

    And third, we really like to make it at least a little bit difficult for the communist Chinese to steal all of our nuclear secrets and there really no way that could be prevented from a street front office building in the middle of the city.

    So no, they’re not gonna be building nuclear bombs at 400 Pennsylvania Avenue. Now as to licensing small module nuclear reactors to power our air-conditioning on days like today, that they might be doing there and it would be a good thing if they did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Donate Today

Will you help us continue our work to reform American higher education?