Trump Suffers Massive Blow in War on Education Department

A federal judge has blocked President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon from carrying out an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education.

On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Trump administration from carrying out the president’s March executive order to dismantle the agency.

“Today we take a very historic action that was 45 years in the making,” Trump said at the time. “Everybody knows it’s right. The Democrats know it’s right, and I hope they’re going to vote for it because ultimately it may come before them.”

Joun disagreed, stating that the executive order painted a “stark picture of the irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s most vulnerable student populations.”

“The record abundantly reveals that defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute,” Joun wrote, condemning the administration for trying to abolish a department without approval from Congress.

Joun also called for the reinstatement of employees who were fired from the department by the Department of Government Efficiency. “Restore the department to the status quo,” he wrote in his ruling.

Trump has yet to comment on the decision.

It looks like Donald Trump’s streak of hiring wildly unqualified people remains undefeated.

Frank Bisignano, the new Social Security Administration commissioner, revealed Wednesday that he’d needed to google what the position actually entailed after being tapped to lead the benefits agency servicing more than 70 million Americans, according to the Federal News Network.

In a largely unscripted address Wednesday, the former chairman and CEO of banking technology company Fiserv remarked that he wasn’t totally familiar with his new presidentially appointed role.

“I don’t think the commissioner of Social Security is like a globally known title. It is to you, right? But, like, it wasn’t to me,” Bisignano said. “I’m like, ‘Well, what am I gonna do?’ So I’m googling ‘Social Security.’ That’s one of my great skills, I’m one of the great googlers on the East Coast.”

“I’m like, ‘What the heck’s the commissioner of Social Security?’”

The best “googler on the East Coast” said that he hoped to oversee a “digital-first” agency.

“We’re never going to be client-first if we’re not digital-first in this era,” Bisignano said. “That’s the only way we’re going to win. You’re competing with experiences that people have with Amazon. If I can get something done at Amazon, why can’t I get something done the same way with Social Security? That’s how people think.”

Bisignano has no experience working in government, serving as a staunch defender of corporate interests, and was previously one of the highest-paid CEOs in the country.

In agreeing to serve as SSA commissioner, Bisignano also agreed to sell his shares in Fiserv, which were worth roughly $484 million. But because of a loophole in the tax code for government officials that defers his capital gains tax on divestment, he won’t be forced to pay tens of millions of dollars in potential taxes on the massive windfall.

The Trump administration is in the process of a massive overhaul at the SSA, after announcing that it plans to reduce the workforce by 7,000 federal workers, offering buyouts, and reassigning many employees from regional offices to field offices, according to FNN. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency have alleged “extreme levels of fraud” at the SSA but have only uncovered two likely fraudulent claims out of over 110,000.

Some other desperately unqualified Trump hires include former Fox & Friends co-host turned Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and surgeon general nominee Casey Means, a wellness influencer and author who has no active medical license and never completed her physician residency.

Republicans may be glad that Elon Musk is gone from the White House, but they’re not happy he’s taking his money with him.

The world’s richest man said at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday that he believes he’s “done enough” when it comes to political spending.

“I think in terms of political spending, I’m going to do a lot less in the future,” Musk said.

But that news was not welcomed by Republicans, who feared that they could be losing their “whale” before the midterm elections, per Politico.

Musk was Donald Trump’s top financial backer in the 2024 election, spending at least $250 million in the final months of the president’s campaign after Trump was shot in July.

But Trump wasn’t the only beneficiary of Musk’s immense wealth: America’s top political donor also dropped north of $3 million on a key Wisconsin Supreme Court race in April, which much to the party’s chagrin saw the Republican-backed candidate Brad Schimel lose by double digits. (Musk-backed groups, including America PAC and Rebuilding America’s Future, spent another $19 million to sponsor Schimel.)

The unpopular Tesla CEO became a central figure in the Wisconsin race, and it’s unclear if his desperate and sometimes illegal attempts to help Schimel win—including bribing voters to ideologically side with the conservative candidate—did more harm than good at the voting booth. Regardless, Schimel’s poor performance has led political observer to wonder if the entire experience left a bad taste in the billionaire’s mouth.

If it did, it would come at an especially inopportune time for Republicans, who are quietly hoping that there’s still enough favor in the tank to influence Musk to support Winsome Earle-Sears for Virginia governor, who “faces a major cash disadvantage against Democrat Abigail Spanberger,” according to Politico.

Republicans had come to rely on Musk’s seemingly endless cashflow. In the wake of the November election, Musk declared that his super PACs would “play a significant role in primaries.” In the following months, Musk threatened to use his money to fund primary challengers to Trump’s agenda and go after Democrats, and that he would be preparing “for the midterms and any intermediate elections, as well as looking at elections at the district attorney level.”

If Musk sticks to his word this time, Republicans can wave that cash goodbye. Still, some conservatives are crossing their fingers that the unlikable billionaire will return to party politics—along with his open faucet of cash.

“I believe he means it right now,” GOP consultant Josh Novotney told Politico. “But every election is unique. So he may be motivated to be active again in the future.”

Democrats, meanwhile, don’t expect Musk’s influence to dissipate all at once. Instead, strategists on the other side of the aisle predict that Musk’s money will begin to flow through dark channels that will make it harder to track his influence.

“I believe he will start moving his money in the background, through nonprofits,” Pat Dennis, president of major Democratic super PAC American Bridge, told Politico. “It’ll be a lot more of that now.”

Disney and ABC News are attempting to broaden the scope of The View to decenter politics, following increased scrutiny from President Donald Trump.

Multiple sources told The Daily Beast that ABC News President Almin Karamehmedovic had met with the executive producer of the daytime talk show, as well as the panel of hosts, to ask them to tone down their discussion of politics.

Hosts Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Sara Haines, Sunny Hostin, and Ana Navarro have been steadfast critics of the Trump administration. Karamehmedovic suggested that the hosts focus less on political discussions, emphasizing the well-rated episodes that focused more on celebrity guests. While it wasn’t an order, the message was clear. But the hosts weren’t interested in caving to the pressure.

One source familiar with the meeting told the Beast that the hosts had fought back against Karamehmedovic, saying, “This is what our audience wants. Isn’t it gonna look kind of bad if we’re all of a sudden not talking about politics?”

The hosts noted that some viewers specifically sought them out for their political commentary. Griffin served as a White House aide during Trump’s first administration and has provided searing rebukes of her former boss’s current antics in the White House.

The women did not bend and decided the request was “silly” and that “they were just going to keep doing their thing,” according to one source.

Multiple sources said that Navarro, a Republican host who spoke in support of Kamala Harris at the Democratic National Convention, also spoke to Disney’s CEO Bob Iger during the company’s Upfront presentation day last week, and the executive told her once again to tone down the political rhetoric.

Iger has become a regular target for Trump. Earlier this week Trump threatened “Fake ABC News” and called out Iger for coverage of the Qatari jet scandal. Earlier this month, the president posted on Truth Social criticizing ABC News host Martha Raddatz’s coverage of Pope Leo XIV’s selection, and specifically called out Iger to “do something about the losers and haters he’s got on his low rated shows.”

House Republicans passed Donald Trump’s “big, beautiful” budget early Thursday, advancing a reconciliation package to the Senate that had been jammed through committee hearings held largely in the dead of night.

But in the process of sneaking the budget to the upper chamber, Republicans tacked on an unexpected and dangerous provision that had nothing to do with Medicaid, overtime tax, or reducing the federal deficit. Instead, they added a detail that would hamper federal courts’ ability to “hold government officials in contempt when they violate court orders,” according to Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

The addendum follows repeat losses for the president in the court system. Since January, the judiciary has been the only branch of government standing in Trump’s way when it comes to enacting his executive orders, perhaps most notably on his attempts to end constitutional rights such as birthright citizenship and habeas corpus.

“Now is not the time to limit the ability of federal courts to enforce their judicial orders,” Chemerinsky implored in a column on JustSecurity earlier this week.

A Pew Research Center survey from April indicated that the vast majority of the American public—Republicans and Democrats—want the Trump administration to end an action if it’s deemed illegal by a federal court. But the provision in the reconciliation bill would make that goal all the more difficult by retroactively requiring a “security”—such as a bond—to be paid by a plaintiff before an order is issued.

That detail would effectively render countless court orders, across the board, unenforceable, according to Chemerinsky, since “federal courts rarely have required plaintiffs to post bonds.”

“Even when the government had been found to violate the Constitution, nothing could be done to enforce the injunctions against it,” Chemerinsky noted. “In fact, the greatest effect of adopting the provision would be to make countless existing judicial orders unenforceable. If enacted, judges will be able to set the bond at $1 so it can be easily met. But all existing judicial orders where no bond was required would become unenforceable.”

The budget passed by just a hair Thursday morning, with two Republicans joining all Democrats in voting against it and 215 Republicans voting in favor.