Should You Work In The Trump Administration?
I would not. Your mileage may vary. And that's good for all of us.
First, we've got a great group of people gathering Tuesday afternoon to discuss the impact of the election on education. Lakisha Young of Oakland Reach, who is always a great guest; Kevin Huffman, former Tennessee education commissioner, TFA leader, and Washington Post columnist; and Lindsay Fryer, a former House and Senate Hill hand and plugged-in strategist. You can join the discussion at 4 PM ET Tuesday on LinkedIn.
Regarding the incoming administration:
We'll know pretty soon who the Education Secretary nominee is, and the evolving list, at least as it’s been leaked to me secondhand, indicates it could go a few different ways—from competent hands to theater. At least it's not Matt Gaetz, that makes school visits less concerning.
The standard for evaluating the pick, and all these picks, is not, "Is this the person I would have picked?" Rather, it's, "Is this a good pick in the context of this administration?"
So, "Who’s going in?" That’s the question people are asking at meetings, over drinks and dinner, and on the conference circuit.
It’s often followed by, "Should I do it?" or "Would you do it?"
I would not. I'm not a Republican, though it's unclear if Trump is either, so I guess that’s not a reason. But I’ve certainly criticized Trump too much without recanting, don't agree on many things, etc..etc... so they wouldn’t want me anyway. I also believe that mangling the peaceful transfer of power is disqualifying. I'm not averse to working in a cross- or bipartisan way, and I don’t think Trump is wrong in every case; I just think he’s the wrong medicine. When faced with a choice between socially coercive toxic progressivism and MAGA, my answer is no thanks. Others may handicap it differently.
That’s why you should consider government service. Other citizens may view it differently. It’s our government. As importantly, our community needs to support people who view it differently if we intend to be a broad national movement for school improvement, not a faction.
Here’s why:
For starters, the election is over, and it has to settle things for at least some period. While it wasn’t a landslide, it was certainly decisive. The era of the permanent campaign, lawfare, and all its elements is adversely affecting the quality of life for Americans. We face real challenges as a country, and specifically in education, and we need the best possible people in government to address them regardless of who is in charge. This doesn’t mean acquiescing to things you don’t agree with, but it does mean coming to the table.
The argument, "I want Trump to fail because I don’t like him," doesn’t align with rhetoric like, "I care about improving education in this country" or "I put kids first." If you disagree with Trump, then persuade and pivot to governmental politics from electoral politics. Don’t hope or root for the worst just to make a point. One makes you an advocate; the other makes you an asshole.
If President Trump is serious about restructuring the Department of Education, he’ll need competent and seasoned hands to do it in a way that is not disruptive and is hopefully productive. From student loans to critical funding for underprivileged children to civil rights, the Department impacts many aspects of American life. We all have a stake in this, even if we disagree with the direction. And everyone knows there’s room for improvement across government.
Even if it’s chaos—always the chalk bet with this crew—you still want good people managing the chaos.
Some education-oriented Republicans who entered the first Trump administration certainly paid a social and professional tax. Conservatives, and others deviating from political orthodoxy, in our sector do in general. This isn’t healthy; we should encourage good people to step forward and support them after their service. We should encourage divergent viewpoints to find the best solutions. When you hear blackball talk, speak up—even if it’s not the choice you would make. Recognize where you are on the map; it might be in the minority. I know I am.
Look, if someone says, "I want to join the administration because it’s the best way to be cruel to immigrants," or something in a similar vein that person should not be in our community. Yet I don’t hear education people saying that. Instead, there are people who want to expand school choice, reduce the federal footprint, or work on one of the dozens of issues the Department oversees. It’s okay to agree to disagree with them and still be grateful for their service.
Yes, it’s okay to agree to disagree on many things. The expansion of topics on which we cannot disagree and the expansion of definitions of what we're disagreeing about has not been healthy for our sector, its politics, or the country. Everyone has lines, that's good, but everything doesn’t have to be a line.
The best way to address Trump, in my view, is not to treat him like an exotic —though he may be—but rather to expect and hold him and his appointees accountable for normal government operations and improvements.
Bottom line: The scale of President Donald Trump’s election victory has changed the calculus about working in the administration for many people who would be good public servants. It has created a permission structure that would not exist if we were arguing over 1,000 votes in a swing state. Even if, like me, you’re not pleased with the election result, that’s probably a good thing. The election is over. A wider pool of talent benefits all of us because we’re all in this together.
That’s the point.