Whether the topic is immigration, foreign affairs, or the economy, all eyes are on President-elect Donald Trump as he prepares to return to office at the end of January. The 45th president used his campaign to outline many of his plans for a second presidential term. However, the biggest mystery is what he plans to do with the Department of Education (DOE).

In 2023, Trump said in one of his campaign videos, “Rather than indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual and political material … our schools must be totally refocused to prepare our children to succeed.” He also said during a September rally, “We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education.” And Trump shared in a post on Truth Social last month, “We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and [Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon] will spearhead that effort.” The president-elect’s statements have led to a debate over whether it’s even possible for Trump to dismantle the DOE.

Even if the department isn’t ultimately shut down, Christians and conservatives have voiced their hopes that Trump will at least follow through on re-working what the DOE prioritizes. For instance, Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm, guest host of a recent episode of “Washington Watch,” noted how many expect Trump to “put a stop to the woke, radical, LGBT indoctrination that the Biden-Harris administration has been pushing on America’s kids.” Considering this, questions remain over what will be different in the Trump Department of Education in January, including whether schools will prioritize math and science over gender ideology.

Meg Kilgannon, FRC’s senior fellow for Education Studies, joined Backholm in order to share her insight on the matter. Out of all the “Biden administration education policies that need some adjustment,” as Backholm put it, Kilgannon believes “the push for gender identity in all corners of our lives” should be the first to go.

“[T]he Title IX rule [rewrite] was just egregious,” she argued, which ultimately allowed boys in private girls’ spaces. “[T]hat obviously needs to go. But … I mean, it’s a long list, really.” As to whether the DOE will get shut down, Kilgannon noted that the only way for that to happen is if there can be an agreement within Congress to do so. Even though some bills have been introduced to eliminate the department, 60 votes would be necessary to put anything into effect. “And while Republicans have the majority [in the Senate], we do not have 60 votes,” she stated. “That means we have to go to incredibly liberal and out of touch senators in the U.S. Senate from deep, deep blue states to get their agreement on this.”

For the time being, Kilgannon explained that “while we have a Department of Education, we need to be running it like Republicans should run it. … [This] means to me that we’re going to not weaponize the institution. We’re going to run it in a fiscally responsible way. … We’re going to stay within … the guardrails of common sense and with an understanding of what it is that people expect from the department.”

Although, according to Kilgannon, Americans shouldn’t expect much from the DOE in the first place “because education is the purview of states and localities. … [S]o little of the funding for education comes from the Department that it should not wield this level of influence that it wields.” As Kilgannon noted, “Part of the problem [is] it’s a big bully pulpit.”

The real question, Backholm asked, is “who should be making the decisions about education? President Trump was very clear as [a] candidate … that this should be made at the local level. Let’s get the federal government out of that process.” Backholm added that “there are lots of concerns about the ideology that’s being transmitted through our public education system, much of which is very concerning to parents. How do we actually stop this stuff?” He specifically referenced diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, as well as critical race theory (CRT) curriculums.

To address how to stop it, Kilgannon first explained how DEI and CRT wormed their way into public education. “[I]n terms of for the Department of Education,” she said, “there’s a lot you can do with financial incentives and disincentives for having diversity, equity, and inclusion staff on college campuses, for example. There are ways to use the Office of Civil Rights that incentivize people in order to avoid investigations for civil rights violations. Because … these programs related to DEI and CRT and gender identity [make it so that] you are infringing on the civil rights of many, many other people in the process of advancing that agenda.”

Part of stopping that agenda, she continued, would be to “use the Office for Civil Rights to start investigations in some big school districts to let people know that we’re not going to tolerate that behavior. [Then] I think that people will conform.” It may not “change their belief system, [but] it will change behaviors.” Additionally, Backholm noted that part of instigating change in public education means dealing with the teachers that want DEI and CRT to be implemented. He explained that “so much of the worldview instruction … the value system instruction … the promotion of gender theory, and everything [that] has to do with the Sexual Revolution has to do with the individual teacher inside the individual classroom.”

Backholm continued, “[F]or generations now, we’ve been cranking … these little progressives out of our education institutions and putting them in front of eight-year-olds and nine-year-olds and 14-year-olds.” As such, “how do you … reform [the system] if those teachers are still thoroughly committed to progressivism and they’re still sitting in front of the classroom?” According to Kilgannon, “[Y]ou can start solving that problem by addressing the problem at the higher ed level. When you get DEI out of the educational institutions that create the teachers, then you have a better prepared teacher.” Rather than emphasizing a political agenda, Kilgannon emphasized that teachers should be asked these questions: “What is the science of teaching reading? How do you teach mathematics? How do you have a literate and numerate class at the end of your [year]?”

If a teacher can answer those questions with the student’s best interest in mind, Kilgannon observed, then “that will go a long way toward addressing the problem” — especially as it relates to “this issue of the ideology.”