President Trump’s order to shut down the Department of Education has been blocked by a Biden appointed federal judge, halting layoffs and the department’s downsizing. Trump officials say they will appeal, vowing to continue their legal path to fulfill his campaign promise.
Key Facts:
- District Judge Myong Joun blocked President Trump’s executive order to shut down the Department of Education.
- The ruling also halts layoffs that had already cut half the agency’s workforce.
- Education Secretary Linda McMahon had been implementing Trump’s directive to transfer student aid and disability programs to other agencies.
- Judge Joun ruled that the cuts caused “irreparable harm,” including disruptions to FAFSA and delays in school funding.
- Trump officials say the plan will continue through legal channels, with an appeal expected.
The Rest of The Story:
President Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education has hit a major legal roadblock.
A federal judge stepped in on Thursday to block the closure and halt the ongoing reduction in force, which had already eliminated half of the department’s staff.
The judge’s ruling also stopped Trump’s plan to move key programs—like student loans and disability services—out of the department.
Judge Myong Joun argued that the department’s cuts rendered it unable to fulfill its legally mandated duties.
In particular, he cited the near-elimination of the Federal Student Aid office and functional risks to the FAFSA system as justification for the ruling.
While the final authority to dismantle the department lies with Congress, the Trump administration has made it clear that the goal remains total elimination.
BREAKING: A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from dismantling the Department of Education and ordered the administration to reinstate employees fired in a mass termination.
This can't happen without cnogressional approval, she ruled.https://t.co/OsEWPn6OOj pic.twitter.com/0JsoRPHXPR
— Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) May 22, 2025
Commentary:
This case is just the latest in a long line of judicial oversteps that aim to stall or outright block the elected president from carrying out his agenda.
Time and again, unelected judges have injected their opinions into executive decisions, using legal loopholes to override the will of the people.
President Trump campaigned on eliminating the Department of Education, and the voters backed that vision.
Federal judges like Myong Joun seem more interested in preserving bloated bureaucracies than respecting constitutional boundaries.
The claim of “irreparable harm” is the usual scare tactic—used to protect entrenched interests and guarantee the survival of useless federal offices.
The Department of Education has become a bloated relic that adds layers of red tape while producing little in terms of real educational outcomes.
At some point, the executive branch must reclaim its authority.
So far, Trump has chosen to fight these battles in the courts.
But if judges continue to act like lawmakers, the president may be forced to stand his ground and ignore politically motivated rulings.
It’s time Congress stepped in to defund these courts or at least strip them of their inflated power.
Judges appointed for life are now acting as gatekeepers of progressive policy, blocking any attempt at real reform.
Meanwhile, the debt continues to rise.
Every year we keep these agencies running on autopilot costs taxpayers billions.
Without serious cuts to the federal government—starting with agencies like the Department of Education—the entire structure will collapse under the weight of its own spending.
If the judiciary won’t let the executive lead and Congress won’t cut, then we are watching the slow-motion failure of self-governance.
Trump’s push to cut is not just about education—it’s about survival.
The Bottom Line:
A federal judge has temporarily stopped President Trump from following through on his plan to shut down the Department of Education.
The court claims the cuts would cripple essential services, but the administration says it will appeal.
This case reflects a broader power struggle between elected leadership and an activist judiciary.
At stake is not just one agency—but whether any president can actually rein in government at all.
Read Next
– Chicago Mayor Brags About Hiring Only Blacks, Immediately Gets Hit With Major DOJ Investigation
– Reporter Threatened, Stories Killed: Inside the Biden Health Cover-Up and the Complicit Press
– Marco Rubio Flattens Van Hollen After Senator Says He Regretted Voting For Him as Sec State’
– Red State Bans The Purchase of Soda or Energy Drinks With Food Stamps
– Another Major Car Company Announces Plans to Scale Back on EV Production