Kerby Anderson
Progressive activists often talk about the “long march through institutions.” For the last few weeks, we have seen a “fast sprint through institutions” by President Trump, followed by Elon Musk. The flurry of activity by the president and his administration has raised an important question. What are the limits to presidential authority?
Yuval Levin provides “A Rule of Thumb for the Executive Power Debates.” Of course, we can find the limits to executive power in the Constitution, in the Federalist Papers, and in various court decisions. But he breaks Trump’s power down to two contexts: “in relation to the executive branch over which he presides, and in relation to the larger constitutional system in which he plays a part.”
When it comes to the president’s authority over the executive branch, his power is supreme. The Constitution says: “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Of course, there are some limitations to that power, as illustrated by the confirmation hearings in Congress that have been taking place.
However, when it comes to the government as a whole, “the president’s role is constrained and is in many respects overshadowed by Congress. His core function is to take care that the laws Congress has passed are faithfully executed.”
The Constitution (and subsequent court decisions) deal with both sets of presidential powers. It allows the president to have expansive powers in dealing with his executive branch but constrains those powers when dealing with the whole government.
Although many Supreme Court judges would hold to this same view found in the Constitution, we are seeing some federal judges rule against some of President Trump’s presidential actions. I predict that many of those judges decisions will later be overruled.

Penna Dexter
The Department of Education is not needed. More evidence surfaced recently in results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, given to 4th and 8th graders every two years. Average NAEP scores in both grades are down 2 points since 2022. A third of eighth graders scored “below basic” in reading, a record low. And math scores continue to drop. The money we throw at the problem is not helping.
President Trump supports abolishing the Department of Education. Since only Congress can shut it down, advisors are debating the specifics of an executive order. The Wall Street Journal learned that the order is expected to “shut down all functions of the agency that aren’t written explicitly into statute” and “move certain functions to other departments.”
The order would also call on Congress to develop legislation to abolish the department. House Education Committee Chair Tim Walburg (R-Michigan), supports doing so, but expects Senate resistance. A recent Wall Street Journal poll shows 61 percent of registered voters want the department’s funding protected.
Betsy De Vos, Secretary of Education during President Trump’s first term wrote, “I can say conclusively that American students will be better off without.”
In an article for The Free Press, Secretary DeVos says she found, during her tenure, that “the Department of Education has almost nothing to do with educating anyone.”
Last year, Congress appropriated nearly $80 billion for education. Mrs. DeVos says, upon receipt of funds, the department‘s bureaucrats ”add strings and red tape, peel off a percentage to pay for themselves, and then send it down to state education agencies.” She recommends that Congress eliminate the middleman and send education funding straight to the states and schools as a block grant.
She says Congress should pass Universal School Choice — giving parents more authority.
Enforcing civil rights law should be shifted to the Department of Justice. And student loans should go to the banks.
Then, close the department’s doors.

Kerby Anderson
Mexico has been in the news because of issues ranging from immigration to tariffs. Victor Davis Hanson wonders whether Mexico is a friend or enemy or something else. He raises some good questions that often are ignored when the media talks about our neighbor to the south.
Immigration and border security are the first issue. He argues that “Mexico seems to assume that it has a sovereign right to encourage the flight of millions of its own impoverished citizens illegally into the US and further assumes that it can fast-track millions of Latin Americans through its territory and across our border.”
Drugs are a second issue. He observes that “Mexico either cannot or will not address the billions of dollars of raw fentanyl products shipped in—mostly from China—and then processed for export to the U.S. by its cartels across a nonexistent border.”
He reminds us that some 75,000 Americans on average die of fentanyl each year. This is more deaths in just the last decade than all the Americans killed in action during World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War combined.
Finally, he reports that “Mexico encourages its expatriate illegal aliens to send back some $63 billion per year in remittances. That huge sum constitutes one of Mexico’s largest sources of foreign exchange, surpassing even its tourist and oil revenues.”
You can read his column in its entirety and learn more about the past president of Mexico and the current one. Some of these issues explain why the leadership in Mexico has been unwilling and perhaps unable to deal with the border issues between the US and Mexico.
Perhaps now you can see why President Trump believed he had to resort to other means to get compliance.