“Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy night.”

(9 minute read)

In the 1950 film, “All About Eve,” Bette Davis as Margo Channing utters those famous words, “Fasten your seat belts…” It is one of the most iconic film moments in Hollywood history. In a modern world filled with memes, this one is one of the best. If you’ve never seen the movie, do yourself a favor and put it on your list.

Davis, as Channing, is an aging star of the stage. She meets a shy young woman named, Eve Harrington, played by Anne Baxter, and takes her on as a protege. Channing delivers the lines to friends after she has learned that Eve is working hard to usurp her.

“Fasten your seat belts…” is a warning. She’s decided to fight for herself. Brace yourselves, the drama is about to be dialed up to 11 and things are going to get messy.

On July 14, 2025, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS), in an unsigned order allowed “layoffs” from the Trump administration to continue. The headline was just one of many in a 24-hour news cycle. It is news that affects what we are doing here, so fasten your seat belts…

To call these layoffs softens the blow of what really is going on. Let’s call them what they are. These layoffs are really firings. The administration has no intention of ever bringing back those employees.

The firings are aimed at the Federal Department of Education (DOE).

The unsigned order from SCOTUS provided no explanation for the decision. That’s not unusual. For the sake of expediency, the higher court will sometimes release an order without having written a majority opinion. More often than not, the order comes with at least a short paragraph providing a brief reason for their decision. Letting the American people know at least why they decided the way they did has always been an obligation.

What is unusual is about their silence is the weightiness of this decision. It is very telling that they decided not to write one. The consequences are monumental and could have a much larger impact on the future.

The decision effectively overturned a lower court’s order that stopped the firings. That lower order found that the President’s actions were unconstitutional. The judge declared that the he didn’t have the power to fire more than 1,400 employees at the department. Since the DOE was established by Congress the power to take such action rested with them. The President’s lawyers appealed that decision to the Supreme Court and their decision was noted above.

SCOTUS just handed the President more executive power than any other prior president ever held. Full stop. Which begs an answer to the question, would they have decided this if a Democrat was in the White House?

While the majority decided not to write an opinion or statement, the dissenting Justices did. It was written by Justice Sotomayor with Justices Jackson and Kagan concurring. In it she noted that Trump publicly claimed the power to destroy the congressionally established department “by executive fiat (decree).” She went on to further chastise the right-wing majority for enabling him to do so.

“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it. The President must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them. That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers. Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief,” wrote Sotomayor.

This isn’t the first time that the three liberal justices dissent is this scathing.

The process of how SCOTUS operates has been the same for decades. In previous SCOTUS decisions, the Justices vote on the court case. The majority Justices write an opinion, the dissenters write theirs. If you ever have a night of insomnia feel free to read any of them. They are written with politeness and with respectful language. They are usually full of legal jargon without any hint of drama.

Obviously it’s not working like that these days. Lately, the three Justices are decidedly more pointed in their dissents, exposing the human drama taking place with the Justices. As journalist Aziz Huq wrote recently in The Atlantic, they “are writing about a majority unbound by law and its tiresome technicalities—about a majority that is no longer doing law as that term has come to be understood.”

They are trying to send a message to the American people. “[T]he dissents are screaming that the old game of law is no more; we’re in a different world, they say. Their critiques of incoherence, internal contradiction, and factual obfuscation are all in service of this,” writes Huq.

The recent decision on the DOE is but one example and the full consequences have yet to be realized. It sets precedence for the President to summarily dismantle or weaken any department established by Congress, despite laws saying otherwise.

In 1973, President Nixon tried to dismantle the Office of Economic Opportunity, an agency created by Congress to fight poverty. The Supreme Court denied him the power to do so.

The Office of Economic Opportunity. An agency created to fight poverty. Nixon and the Republicans wanted it gone.

Observers will begin to notice a pattern.

The President clearly has a Supreme Court that has a different world-view from their predecessors. They have continued a practice of ignoring precedence and earlier court decisions. In the end they have chosen to cede power to a Republican Executive branch at every turn.

“This is a major expansion of presidential power, permitting the president to disregard laws Congress has passed, despite the Constitution’s clear assignment of lawmaking power to Congress alone.”

– Heather Cox Richardson, Letters From An American, July, 15, 2025

In his 2024 run for the White House, candidate Trump vowed to abolish the DOE. In the 2016 election he hardly mentioned it. In 2024 the DOE is a campaign issue, red meat for the base. He claimed the Department imposed “woke” ideology and that its employees “hate our children.”

However, the Department has never set curriculum. Those are handled and implemented at the state and local levels. The Department’s main role is disbursing funds for high poverty schools and students with disabilities. They also develop national educational goals and collect data on student achievement.

Perhaps those last two mandates are why President Trump and the MAGA movement are so offended. Is setting national standards and collecting data “woke” ideology? A bridge too far? Overreach by a deep-state branch of the federal government?

Dispersing funds for high poverty schools and students with disabilities. Standards ensuring children in Alabama, Michigan, California, or Vermont have the same reading or math skills is woke overreach?

But I and others fear that it is far more sinister than that.

A brief history of the DOE and its relationship to the Republican Party is all you need to know about how we got here. Their agenda is clear and they are finally getting what they’ve wished for.

• Shortly after the DOE was established (in fact, two months later) Republicans created a party policy calling on Congress to abolish the department
• In 1982, Ronald Regan called for eliminating the department in his State of the Union speech
• Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House in the mid 1990s called for its elimination
• In 2008, Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president, said it should be shut down or drastically reduced
• In 2024, the Republican controlled House of Representatives voted to eliminate the department, but couldn’t garner the majority votes needed to do so
• Earlier this year, President Trump signed an executive order to fire nearly half of the Department. Last week, the Supreme Court allowed for those firings to go forward

According to CNN, within two hours of the Court’s decision, notices of intent to continue with the firings were sent to employees. The DOE is led by professional wrestling promoter Linda McMahon. She was appointed by Trump and confirmed earlier this year.

McMahon has certainly led an interesting business and political life. She was the co-founder and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment. She ran for a U.S. Senate seat twice and lost. Her qualifications for running the DOE, a federal office? One year on the Connecticut Board of Education and as a trustee at a Catholic University.

But it is her political affiliations that is most eye opening.

McMahon was appointed as head of the U.S. Small Business Administration for nearly two years during Trump’s first term in office. In 2019, she resigned to chair the pro-Trump Super PAC called America First Action, Inc. It was a single candidate PAC that raised nearly $190 million for Trump’s presidential bid. While in charge of the DOE she is also a co-leader with another organization called America First Policy Institute (AFPI).

What is the America First Policy Institute? I’m glad you asked.

AFPI is listed on their website as being a “501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan research institute.” According to a recent article, AFPI is “preparing a ‘100-year plan’ to sustain America First policies long after Trump is gone.” (emphasis mine)

Non-partisan? That’s a joke, right?

But the more disturbing point is the attempt at sustaining America First policies. As in, America First policies. As in, …OK, let’s dig into it.

Observers will begin to see a pattern.

On the AFPI website, the organization says it “exists to advance policies that put the American people first.” That description is intentional. It’s code for a certain people and a very different America.

Read The University In Crises, (Pt. 8)

Sources:

• Sarah Churchwell, Behold America. The Entangled History of “America First” and “The American Dream,” Basic Books, New York, N.Y., 2018. The influence of Churchwell’s work is felt throughout this article.