Musk responded to the group resignation with a post on X.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
21 employees from the agency rebranded the US DOGE Service resigned on Tuesday.
The signatories said in a joint letter that they refuse to "jeopardize Americans' sensitive data."
Elon Musk and a spokeswoman for the White House DOGE Office responded to the resignations on X.
Twenty-one civil service employees resigned from the agency that was rebranded the United States DOGE Service on Tuesday, protesting the White House DOGE office's actions.
"We will not use our skills as technologists to compromise core government systems, jeopardize Americans' sensitive data, or dismantle critical public services," the employees wrote in their public resignation letter directed to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. "We will not lend our expertise to carry out or legitimize DOGE's actions."
The letter, dated February 25, was taken down on Tuesday afternoon without an explanation, though the resignations were not publicly rescinded.
On Inauguration Day, President Donald Trump formally turned the Obama-era United States Digital Services into the White House DOGE office. Trump previously appointed Elon Musk to co-lead the effort, but a top White House official recently declared in a legal filing that Musk is not leading DOGE and is instead a senior advisor to Trump.
In their letter, the now-former employees had said that DOGE representatives "began integrating us into their efforts," which the signatories believe were inconsistent with their goals as civil servants.
Jonathan Kamens, a former USDS engineer who was fired on February 14, told BI that he thinks more federal employees are beginning to push back against the White House DOGE office's most recent efforts.
"We are seeing more resistance, we are seeing more overt resistance," he said the day before the group resignation.
Musk took notice of the employees' collective actions and responded on X, writing, "These were Dem political holdovers who refused to return to the office. They would have been fired had they not resigned."
Katie Miller, a spokesperson for the White House DOGE office, also took to X to respond: "These were full remote workers who hung Trans flags from their workplaces."
The group resignation comes one day after federal employees faced a deadline to list their productivity from the past week. Agencies offered conflicting guidelines on whether or how to respond to the request, and some employees told BI that the experience bred confusion and stress.
Representatives for Trump, Musk, and the White House DOGE office did not respond to BI's request for comment.
Under the pilot, called NCA, or native commerce advertising, the publisher earns money when it drives readers to Amazon through product recommendations, regardless of whether they end up buying the product or not, three people familiar with the program told Business Insider. These people requested anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly about the program; their identities are known to BI.
CNN, Vox Media, and tech publisher Future are among the publishers participating in the NCA pilot. Amazon plans to roll it out more fully this year.
Amazon is pitching the NCA program to publishers as a way for them to make additional money on top of its Amazon Associates program, which launched back in 1996. That program lets publishers earn a commission by driving sales from recommended products or services. It pays varying commissions by category, from 3% for toys and furniture to 10% for luxury beauty and up to 20% for Amazon video games.
Publishers can enroll in both programs and make money two ways if the reader completes a purchase.
For Amazon, the NCA pilot is a way to expand its advertising inventory without further cluttering the top of its search results, where sponsored ads have become a common source of user complaints.
Amazon declined to comment.
The jury's out on how well the program will deliver
Affiliate revenue has become a sizable business for many publishers at a time when competition for advertising and subscription dollars is tough, and Amazon is often their top revenue source. The New York Times, in the fourth quarter, reported $95 million in "other revenue," which includes its Wirecutter product recommendation business as well as licensing revenue.
One participating publisher said they were seeing a decent uptick in revenue from the NCA program. But they said the program, at least in its test phase, is complicated to implement. They added that the cost per click varied widely, with rates ranging from 20 to 60 cents, and it was hard to know how lucrative the program would be in the long term.
That variability could present some added risk to publishers.
With NCA, there's an incentive to recommend vendors offering a high cost per click, whether or not their product is the best. Amazon teams have even recommended publishers do so, two people familiar with the program said.
Publishers have dealt with a similar dilemma in the affiliate business more generally. Those with commerce businesses usually share a disclosure saying they may earn money from products they recommend, but that their product recommendations are based on independent research and analysis. Reputable publishers work hard to safeguard their product review editorial teams from the revenue side.
Still, the variability between different products in the same category in NCA is beyond the norm, and could tempt some less scrupulous publishers to take advantage.
Some publishers' affiliate businesses have been under attack
While the money from NCA might not be huge, any new source of revenue is welcome to digital publishers. Many publishers have faced business challenges as Facebook has deprioritized news and tech giants have gobbled up the bulk of the digital advertising pie.
Some publishers' affiliate businesses have also come under attack. Google has cracked down on sites that try to rank high in Google searches by publishing material provided by third parties, such as product reviews and coupons. For example, some of CNN's product recommendations, under CNN Underscored, used to be provided by a company called Forbes Marketplace, which is partly owned by Forbes.
Several publishers saw traffic to their product recommendations pages decline as a result of the crackdown, Adweek reported in November. Some publishers, includingΒ Gannett's USA Today,Β have protested the crackdown, saying it hurts publishers and consumers alike.
US Army soldiers fire an M109 self-propelled howitzer at Fort Riley in Kansas in August 2024.
US Army photo by Sgt. Charles Leitner
The US Army has long known that it has artillery shortcomings that need to be addressed.
As it readies for possible future large-scale combat operations, the Army is looking to plug these gaps.
A general told BI the Army wants new cannons that will increase the range of fire.
Satellite images of eastern Ukraine show pockmarked battlefields left scarred by relentless artillery fire. The craters are a constant reminder that these deadly cannons still play a crucial role in modern warfare.
The US Army is watching this conflict closely as it prepares for potential large-scale combat operations overseas. The importance of artillery isn't new to it, though.
The military knows the value of being able to lob a shell or rocket down range, but it also knows it needs to step up its game. Russia and China are both stepping up theirs.
A general looking into this matter said that there are three areas where Army artillery faces serious capability gaps. He added that the hunt for artillery solutions to bridge these shortcomings is already underway.
"We saw some capability gaps against adversaries in two different theaters as we projected forward into 2030 - 2035," Brig. Gen. Rory Crooks, director of the Army Futures Command long-range precision fires cross-functional team, told Business Insider in a recent interview.
The first deficit is range. Army artillery doesn't have the necessary reach compared to US adversaries. "You provide enemy sanctuary, in some cases, when the enemy has a range overmatch," Crooks explained.
Satellite imagery shows artillery impact craters near Pavlivka, Ukraine.
Satellite image (c) 2023 Maxar Technologies.
Then there is capacity. The US doesn't have enough artillery systems to match the enemy. Simply put, he said, "we're out-gunned."
And lastly, there are survivability concerns. Although some US rivals are divesting of their towed artillery systems, the US Army isn't.
Typically, when soldiers fire their artillery cannons at enemy positions, they want to disperse immediately before the anticipated counter-battery fire β a tactic known as shoot-and-scoot. Towed artillery pieces like the M777 are slower and more difficult to relocate quickly compared to the self-propelled systems, which are mounted on tracked vehicles. That diminishes survivability.
"Those three problems β range, capacity, and survivability based on mobility β are really hard to overcome individually," Crooks said, adding that "collectively, they're very hard to overcome and put us at risk for mission success moving forward."
In recent years, the Army has sought to extend the reach of its guns. One such effort, the Strategic Long Range Cannon, was intended to fire projectiles some 1,000 nautical miles away, but Congress halted funding for the research in 2022.
Another Army initiative, the 58-caliber Extended Range Cannon Artillery, or ERCA, began in 2018 with the aim of extending the range of artillery fire from 18 to 43 miles.
US Army soldiers fire an M777 towed howitzer during live-fire drills in Hawaii in June 2021.
US Army photo by Spc. Jessica Scott
The weapon β a 30-foot gun tube mounted on the chassis of an M109 Paladin self-propelled howitzer β concluded the prototyping stage but did not end up moving into production due to problems observed during live-fire testing. The Army canceled the ERCA program last year, shifting focus to the new Self-Propelled Howitzer Modernization effort.
A Congressional Research Service report published in early February said a study of new conventional fires concluded last year found the Army should focus its efforts on "more autonomous artillery systems with greater range and improved mobility."
It also said that even though the Army ultimately canceled the ERCA program, starting again on its hunt for artillery solutions, "a recently conducted tactical fires study validated the capability gap that the ERCA sought to fill. Observations from Ukraine reinforce the critical role of mobile cannon artillery."
Moving forward, Crooks said that the Army is going to take the success it had with the ammunition work for ERCA and partner that with guns available on the market. He said the service is already looking into allied and partner capabilities.
The Army is specifically eyeing self-propelled howitzers with 52-caliber gun tubes. It is a middle ground between the larger 58-caliber ERCA and the smaller 39-caliber M777 towed howitzer.
"The work that we're doing with introducing, potentially, modernized platforms that are 52-caliber in length, along with the ammunition work that we did that started with ERCA, we think we'll be able to address the requirement that we needed from the ERCA platform and prototyping effort," Crooks said.
The ERCA is seen during a test at the Army's Yuma Proving Ground.
Ana Henderson/US Army Yuma Proving Ground
Last fall, the Army announced that it had awarded contracts to five vendors for the Self-Propelled Howitzer Modernization effort. The $4 million contracts went to American Rheinmetall Vehicles, BAE BOFORS, Hanwha Defense USA, General Dynamics Land Systems, and Elbit Systems USA.
The next step is getting prototype artillery systems out to Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona, where the systems will be put through a series of firing tests. The service could make a decision on its new cannon as early as next year.
But finding a suitable and available 52-caliber gun is just one piece of the puzzle as the Army looks to overcome its range, capacity, and survivability deficits, Crooks said.
The Army also needs to continue the ammunition innovation that was started under the ERCA program, such as the XM1155 sub-caliber projectile developed for the ERCA's 155 mm XM907E2 58-caliber cannon, and scale up its one-way attack drones so these explosive-packed weapons can be used in lieu of traditional artillery rounds.
Artillery is just one element of combined-arms warfare, but as Army leaders continue to closely watch Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that strong cannons will be needed to achieve success in future large-scale combat operations.
"I think what we're seeing is when you don't have adequate artillery to achieve local fire superiority, then that battle devolves quickly to attritional warfare β static warfare," Crooks said. And that's not the kind of war the US military was built to fight.
Red Lobster CEO Damola Adamolekun said he's focusing on improving the chain's food, service, and ambiance to come back after bankruptcy.
Michelle Bruzzese
Red Lobster exited bankruptcy in September with new CEO Damola Adamolekun.
Adamolekun said the brand is improving its menu, service, and music at Red Lobster restaurants.
He also described value as "an equation" between price and what you get for the cost.
Red Lobster is charting a course for recovery under the leadership of its new millennial CEO.
Damola Adamolekun, 36, was appointed CEO of Red Lobster in August, becoming the company's sixth and youngest chief executive after he was brought on to help revitalize the brand following years of declining sales and a bankruptcy filing.
Before joining Red Lobster, Adamolekun served as CEO of P.F. Chang's and was a partner at Paulson & Co., where he played a key role in acquiring the Asian-American restaurant chain in 2019.
Under Adamolekun's leadership, Red Lobster emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy four months after filing in May 2024.
When the chain exited bankruptcy, Red Lobster was acquired by RL Investor Holdings, which included a plan to invest $60 million into the chain, the Associated Press reported at the time.
"Red Lobster is now a stronger, more resilient company, and today is the start of a new chapter in our history," Adamolekun said in a statement after the chain exited bankruptcy.
Adamolekun discussed his goals for Red Lobster on a recent appearance on "The Breakfast Club" and shared the three main areas he's focusing on after exiting bankruptcy.
Updating the restaurant's menu and refocusing on value
Red Lobster has stuck with old favorites but also added new, more affordable options like a lobster roll.
Alex Bitter/Business Insider
After becoming CEO, Adamolekun revamped the menu, brought back popular items like the chain's hush puppies, and introduced happy-hour specials at many restaurants nationwide.
He told "The Breakfast Club" that part of his mission as CEO has been to offer new menu items at a more affordable price point as people tighten their spending.
"Value is an equation. Part of it is price. And you can get some things on the menu that are lower price," new said, mentioning the chain's new lobster rolls which cost around $20 at some locations.
"At the same time, value is what you get for the price," he said. "So if you improve what you get, then you improve value."
"We have Shrimp Your Way for $16.99 for two types of shrimp," he continued. "There are things you can do that are approachable if you don't want to do the full lobster for a higher price."
Improving the service in restaurants
Red Lobster's CEO rolled out a new service model for employees.
Alex Bitter/Business Insider
Adamolekun explained the chain's new "RED Carpet Hospitality" service model, which stands for "recognize," "engage," and "delight."
"When people walk in, you need to recognize them as soon as they walk in. There should be somebody smiling at the post stand to greet them," he said on "The Breakfast Club." "You see somebody β within 10 feet of them, you recognize them. Within 4 feet, you speak to them. We call it the 10-4 rule."
"If we're not going to be priced as Chipotle, then we need to offer something that Chipotle doesn't offer," he said. "And what that is is called service and hospitality."
Elevating the ambiance of Red Lobster restaurants in an affordable way
The inside of a Red Lobster restaurant in Maryland.
Many restaurants are locked in by long leases, and Adamolekun said that while a nationwide remodel of Red Lobster restaurants would be expensive and take a long time, the chain is considering it in the future.
He also said that there are smaller ways of improving the dining-in experience that don't require as much funding, such as making the restaurant's music better.
"We fix the things we can fix quickly," he said. "If you go to a Red Lobster now, you'll notice the music is better. And you'll notice there are small things like we put the market prices on the lobster, we put the liners on the tables."
"There are small things you can do now," he said, "but comprehensively, there needs to be a remodel. And that's something that we'll do in the future."
A Southwest Airlines customer watches the airline's fleet of Boeing 737s from a terminal building.
Elliott Cowand Jr/Shutterstock
Southwest Airlines has been known for its affordable flights and fun personality since 1971.
The airline laid off 15% of its headquarters staff in February, the first mass layoff in company history.
Some current and former employees fear recent changes at the airline could kill its storied company culture.
Southwest Airlines has long billed itself as different from other carriers β but after the company's first-ever round of major layoffs, some employees say they worry it'll soon just become like every other airline.
Some of the teams affected by layoffs in February β the airline's only mass layoff since it started flying in 1971 β helped maintain a free-spirited culture that saw flight attendants singing announcements, gate agents putting up balloons, and employees making a music video called "Just Plane Fun," which promoted Southwest's lighthearted approach.
The company also thinned the ranks of its training staff β and greatly trimmed this year's internship program. Also gone: Its decades-old corporate rallies where leaders aimed to pump up the staff.
"The love is dead," one current Southwest headquarters employee told Business Insider. The person didn't want to give their name because they weren't authorized to speak to the press, but BI is aware of their identity.
How an activist firm helped upend Southwest
Employees celebrate Southwest Airlines culture at a company rally in 2023.
Southwest Airlines
The changes come after nearly a year of upheaval at Southwest, during which time an activist investor bought a large stake in the airline and agitated for an operational revamp to cut costs and increase profitability.
Already, Southwest has given in to one of the most visible things that made it unique: its open-seating policy. Starting in the first half of next year, customers will get seat assignments like on any other airline.
The airline also relented on its one-class-fits-all cabin. It's embarking on an overhaul of its fleet to add premium seating, like those with extra legroom available for purchase βΒ adding a new stream of revenue for the airline.
Now, the latest staff cuts, which saw 1,750 people β or about 15% of Southwest's corporate staff laid off β could mean the slow withering away of the rest of what made Southwest different, some employees say.
Southwest told BI that the airline would still stand out because of its culture, which it said is "woven in the fabric" of its employees.
The Winning Spirit conference room at Southwest Airlines headquarters.
BOKA Powell
The airline declined to detail specific department changes. It confirmed that CEO Bob Jordan has asked "all of us at Headquarters to run a leaner organization, and that means evolving the way we approach certain focus areas."
"The strength of Southwest's Culture is critical to the success of our business and our ability to serve our Customers," a spokesperson for the airline told BI in a statement. "The decision to have a reduction in our workforce was extremely difficult and focused almost entirely on Corporate and Leadership positions, but we made every attempt to offer the Employees affected with the care and support they deserve. Our People will continue to be what sets us apart as we drive the Company forward."
One of the teams to see a significant downsizing was the airline's "hospitality" group, the current employee said.
The hospitality team is in charge of tasks like reviewing customer feedback, creating initiatives to make flying Southwest more enjoyable, and hearing from frontline employees.
For instance, the snack cart you sometimes see at a gate during a long delay: That's part of the hospitality team.
Southwest confirmed to BI that its "culture department," which helped plan corporate rallies and other employee- and brand-focused initiatives was also among the teams affected by layoffs.
Southwest employees greet a young passenger at Boston Logan International Airport in 2009.
Matt Stone/MediaNews Group/Boston Herald via Getty Images
Aviation expert Henry Harteveldt of Atmosphere Research Group told BI that the layoffs in certain departments could risk eliminating what made Southwest special.
"Culture is what helped distinguish Southwest Airlines, particularly the commitment to its people and how it went about hiring, training, retention, and more," he said.
Southwest could maintain its culture so long as longtime leaders pass down their institutional knowledge, he said
Conor Cunningham, an airline analyst with Melius Research, echoed those sentiments in recent notes to clients, calling Southwest's culture its "special sauce."
"A delicate balance is very much needed here, as culture is difficult to cultivate but easy to ruin," he said.
Customers may see a change from Southwest founder's original vision
Southwest Airlines gate agents work to rebook a stranded traveler during the holidays.
James Carbone/Newsday RM via Getty Images
Southwest, which launched in Texas, quickly became famous for its cowboy culture, hotpants-wearing flight attendants, and free on-board whiskey.
Charismatic, chain-smoking founder Herb Kelleher once avoided a legal battle by arm-wrestling another company's CEO over rights to the slogan "Just Plane Smart."
Kelleher's unorthodox methods promoted fun for Southwest customers and staff and pushed employees not to take themselves too seriously β and his leadership style inspired Doug Parker, the former CEO of Southwest's home state rival, American Airlines.
"As a younger CEO at industry meetings, I would just do everything I could to just hang around Herb, just to observe and hope I could get some of it through osmosis," Parker told BI in 2019. "He was in tune with what was happening at all levels of his company. And he really cared about it."
One laid-off employee in the technology department told BI they worry Southwest may lose loyal customers who specifically sought out the airline because of its culture and signature policies, like open seating, no-hassle trip changes, and free checked bags.
"I just feel like Southwest is done," the former employee said. "Why would [customers] choose our airline?" The person asked to remain anonymous because they don't want to hurt future hiring prospects, but BI is aware of their identity.
Not everyone has lost hope, though. Another laid-off employee, who asked not to be named for fear of losing their severance, told BI that everyone they interacted with still "maintains the culture to the best of their ability."
Herb Kelleher with Spirit of Kitty Hawk aircraft
Southwest Airlines
Colleen Barrett, a longtime leader alongside Kelleher who died last May, was also key to building Southwest's culture. For decades, she encouraged employees to promote respect, fun, and spirit during work to codify Southwest's people-focused reputation.
"Books have been written about Southwest and its culture," Harteveldt said. To Kelleher and Barrett, "Southwest was more than efficiency and low costs," he said. "They viewed the culture as an asset that made Southwest as a brand more relevant to travelers than competitors."
Elliott's new vision for Southwest
After Barrett's death, Elliott Management, the activist investor, soon announced its stake in Southwest and pushed to shake up the airline. Some employees said they thought Barrett had been the last gatekeeper of old Southwest culture.
The hedge fund said Southwest was leaving opportunities on the table, accusing the airline's leadership of a "stubborn unwillingness to evolve" its business practices, product offerings like the lack of premium seating, and technology infrastructure.
Even though Southwest has failed to turn an annual profit only once since 1973, Elliott noted that the airline's recent earnings were a mere fraction of what they were before the pandemic, while rivals have reported record hauls.
Southwest has also struggled to keep the price of its stock in line with competitors. Over the past year, its shares are down more than 12%, compared to Delta Air Lines, for example, which is up more than 40%
A spokesperson for Elliott Management declined to comment.
Now, with the latest changes β especially the job cuts in core culture-driving groups β there may be no one to stop Southwest from being just another run-of-the-mill US airline, some employees said.
"There's definitely a different culture from here on out," the former technology team member told BI. "I think people are going to realize this isn't Southwest."
Colleen Barrett Servant's Heart tribute at Southwest Airlines Headquarters.
Southwest Airlines
The February layoffs come on top of a huge year of changes at Southwest. Consider this timeline:
May 2024: Barrett dies at 79 after decades of building Southwest's culture.
February 2025: Southwest cuts 1,750 corporate employees, including hospitality staff. A day later, Elliott made an agreement with Southwest that would allow it to acquire up to a 19.9% stake.
Of course, Southwest's culture may endure even after the big changes. The company says it's making these changes to save $510 million over the next two years.
Education in America has been widely shaped by the federal government's actions.
GraphicaArtis/Getty Images
Education in America has changed radically since the nation's founding.
The Department of Education has faced opposition since its initial establishment in 1867.
Concerns of government overreach and unnecessary spending have fueled opponents throughout history.
President Donald Trump's idea to abolish the Department of Education is not a new one β it's existed for longer than the department itself.
The fight to dismantle the Department of Education has been ongoing since 1867, long before the current department was established in 1980.
Opponents have cited concerns of government overreach and unnecessary spending since the department's first, short-lived iteration under President Andrew Johnson. Supporters, on the other hand, have argued that the centralization of education helps maintain fair and equal standards for all children in the nation.
The current administration's push to reduce the federal government's role in education through federal defunding and undoing protections echoes arguments of the past, from the early republic's approaches to schooling to the Cold War concerns over intellectual superiority.
These photos show how the federal government's involvement over the past 200 years has changed and shaped education in the US.
In the 18th century, schools were run entirely by local communities.
Children's education was most often dependent on their parents' ability to pay tuition.
Bettmann/Getty
In theΒ early days of the republic, children were most often educated in small, community-organized settings like churches, work apprenticeships, homeschooling, or in schools run by traveling schoolmasters, groups of parents, or women, per the Center on Education Policy. Wealthy children were often sent to boarding schools too.
Inaccessible to many, these schools often ran on tuition paid by parents, although residents in some Northeastern towns helped fund free local schools. Some churches and religious groups also provided free education for low-income children.
In 1819, the federal government created a fund to "civilize" Native American children.
The Carlisle Boarding School used incarceration practices to "civilize" Native American children.
Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images
The 1819 Civilization Fund Act provided federal funds to "benevolent societies" like religious missionaries who educated Native American children in or near their communities. The act aimed to "civilize" the Native populations.
For the next decades, boarding schools in or near reservations played a major role in assimilating Native Americans into European-American culture. At these schools, children would be removed from their families and communities, stripped of their native languages and clothing, given new names, and have their hair cut off in an effort to assimilate them into white culture.
Reports of abuse, forced labor, and hidden deaths have since come out about these boarding schools, prompting President Joe Biden to issue a formal apology in 2024 for the government's role in funding and running these schools.
President Andrew Johnson created the first Department of Education in 1867.
Despite not being a strong supporter of the measure introduced by Congress, Johnson signed the formation of the Department of Education into law.
The Print Collector/Print Collector/Getty Images
During the 19th century, public schools became more common.
In 1830, 55% of children aged between 5 and 14 attended public schools, according to Johann N. Neem's "Democracy's Schools: The Rise of Public Education in America." By 1870, that number had risen to 78%.
By the late 1860s, the common school movement, which advocated for free, universal, state-funded education, had been growing in the North for decades, according to the Center on Education Policy. School reform in Massachusetts promoted universal schooling as a means to eliminate crime, poverty, and other societal ills.
After the Civil War, abolitionists and public education advocates saw the Northern model of universal education as one of the reasons for the Union's victory in the war and called for its federal expansion.
In 1867, then-Ohio representative James Garfield introduced a bill to create a federal Department of Education, which President Andrew Johnson then signed into law.
The department would collect and analyze data detailing school conditions and performance throughout the states, share information regarding education progress, school systems, and teaching methods, and promote education throughout the country.
"The idea was similar to what we think right now in terms of collecting data, that if we know more, we could improve schools based on that knowledge," Kevin G. Welner, professor of educational policy and law at the University of Colorado Boulder and the director of the National Education Policy Center, told Business Insider.
Shortly after, the department was demoted to an office within the Department of Interior.
Although short-lived, the department faced staunch opposition in Congress.
Library of Congress
The department had a small budget and a passive role in education, yet opposition in Congress considered the establishment of the Department of Education as an overreach of the federal government.
In 1868, it became an office within the Department of Interior, where it remained for the following decades.
Plessy v. Ferguson made segregation legal, bringing an era of "separate but equal" schools.
Segregated schools for Black children often lacked equal resources to their white counterparts.
Lewis Wickes Hine/Library of Congress/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images
In 1896, the Supreme Court upheld a law that "separate but equal accommodations for the white and colored races" were legal, allowing for segregation to spread legally throughout the South.
In education, this meant that segregated schools remained the norm for the following decades, and Black children faced poor education resources such as overcrowded and underfunded schools, inaccessible facilities, and unequal transportation, the National Museum of African American History and Culture wrote.
The federal government started funding vocational education in 1917.
The Smith-Hughes Act funded education in vocational and technical fields.
Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images
By this point, a high school education was still not common to most Americans; only 14% of adults aged 25 and older had completed high school by 1910, according to Census data.
During this time of rapid industrialization, vocational education was seen as a tool to help young workers meet the needs of a changing economy while promoting the moral value of education.
The federal funding helped establish a nationwide system of vocational and technical school programs offered to young workers.
This was the first major step in establishing a federal power within education, Welner said.
"The feeling was that the war efforts and the importance of economic growth depended on preparing more students to work in non-professional vocations," he said.
Veterans received federal funding for college education after World War II.
The GI Bill allowed millions of veterans to access higher education.
Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images
At the end of WWII, the federal government recommended funding college education for veterans to help avoid a postwar depression β the Department of Labor estimated 15 million women and men in the armed services would become unemployed at the war's end.
In 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, or GI Bill, which provided millions of war veterans with education funding and made college degrees more affordable.
The act provided funding for tuition, books, supplies, subsistence, and counseling services for servicemen seeking college education.
Within the next seven years, an estimated 8 million veterans received education benefits from the federal government, according to the National Archives.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional.
Despite being outlawed in 1954, school segregation would continue for the following decade.
UPI/Bettmann via Getty Images
In the landmark Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education, the court found that segregating schools by race was unconstitutional, reversing the previous "separate but equal" ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Despite the court ruling, schools, businesses, and services would continue to employ "de facto segregation" for the following decade leading to the rise of the Civil Rights Movement.
During this time, racial integration in schools became a controversial topic, and there were clashes between people who were in favor and those who opposed it. One example was the anger and injustice experienced by the Little Rock Nine in Arkansas.
The Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik prompted increased funding in science education.
The passage of the National Defense Education Act spotlighted education fields such as science, math, and foreign languages.
Bettmann/Getty Images
In the Cold War space race, Americans found themselves falling behind the Soviets following the launch of the Sputnik satellite. With a newfound interest in education as a branch of national defense, Congress passed the 1958 National Defense Education Act, which provided education funding in areas relevant to the Cold War efforts, like science, math, and foreign languages
While federal education funding had previously been met with strong opposition, the threat of intellectual inferiority at the time persuaded congressmen to support the act.
Lyndon B. Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act provided funding for K-12.
Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act next to his childhood schoolteacher, Ms. Kate Deadrich Loney.
CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images
In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the act providing funding for K-12 schools with high percentages of low-income students as part of his "war on poverty."
The measure aimed to improve school conditions for students and lower poverty rates across the country.
It also provided funding for school supplies, books, training, and research in measures designed to strengthen state departments of education.
According to the ESEA Network, an organization of school administrators and staff, the act was "the most far-reaching federal legislation affecting education ever passed by Congress.Β "
This was the first time that the federal government provided major aid to states for public education funding.
Students with disabilities were granted federal protections in 1975.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act funded free, appropriate public education for children with disabilities.
Denver Post via Getty Images
Previous to federal protections, many children with disabilities didn't have access to public education and instead were often institutionalized in facilities lacking educational instruction.
As reported in Arizona State University's Embryo Project Encyclopedia, only about 20% of children with disabilities attended public school at the beginning of the 1970s.
In 1975, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure that disabled children had access to free, appropriate public education. For this, the act provided funding for special education programs and early intervention services for children.
President Jimmy Carter's federal Department of Education unified federal programs.
Carter's creation of the Department of Education fulfilled a 1976 campaign promise.
AP
During his 1976 presidential campaign, Carter had run on the promise of creating a Department of Education to centralize federal education funding. In 1980, Carter unified different programs, such as ESEA and IDEA, under a federal cabinet-level agency.
"Primary responsibility for education should rest with those States, localities, and private institutions that have made our Nation's educational system the best in the world," President Carter said in his statement on signing the department into law, "but the Federal Government has for too long failed to play its own supporting role in education as effectively as it could."
Welner told BI the move was "symbolically important" for the US.
"When Congress passed the law, and President Carter signed it, I think there was a feeling that this was elevating the importance of education to our country," he said.
That same year, Ronald Reagan promised to dismantle the department on the campaign trail.
Reagan and his first education secretary, Terrel H. Bell, aimed to eliminate the department.
CORBIS/Corbis via Getty Images
During his 1980 presidential campaign against Carter, Ronald Reagan criticized the Department of Education, citing concerns over federal overreach and government spending.
In 1981, after Reagan won the presidency, the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act reauthorized Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Education Act and gave most of the education responsibilities back to the states.
This also resulted in a redistribution of funds away from urban and low-income communities, according to a 1982 RAND report.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education's "Nation at Risk " report, published in 1983, largely shook up national notions of education and the federal government's response to education research findings.
The report warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity [in education] that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people" and effectively prompted an increased government involvement in education through standards and accountability, wrote Morgan Polikoff, an education professor at the University of Southern California.
The Department of Education introduced an increased focus on accountability in 1994.
Clinton's administration saw an early rise in the importance of standards in education.
PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP via Getty Images
During his presidency, Bill Clinton saw the early beginnings of the education reforms that would be prompted by the "Nation at Risk" warnings to the nation.
The Improving America's Schools Act, Clinton's 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, saw increased funding for schools.
The Department of Education also unveiled the Goals 2000 program, which aimed to prepare the nation's students and educational systems for the 21st century.
Under the IASA, states were required to draft plans that included "high-quality standards" for students in order to secure funding.
George W. Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind Act also emphasized accountability and standards.
Bush's education legislation prioritized the role of standardized testing in school accountability.
Brooks Kraft LLC/Corbis via Getty Images
In Bush's 2001 reauthorization of ESEA, an increased focus was put on standardized testing as a measure of school performance. The act aimed to close the achievement gap for disadvantaged students by holding schools accountable for the testing performance of all students.
One of the law's most significant goals was to get every student to grade-level reading and math by 2014, reaching a "100% proficiency" goal set by the Department of Education.
At the time, 18% of fourth-graders, 17% of eighth-graders, and 11% of 12th-graders performed at or above proficiency level, according to the 2001 National Assessment of Educational Progress.
"We're gonna spend more money, more resources," Bush said at the time, as reported by NPR, "but they'll be directed at methods that work. Not feel-good methods. Not sound-good methods. But methods that actually work."
Opponents of No Child Left Behind criticized the act's increased pressure on K-12 teachers by imposing testing standards as a universal measure of progress.
While monitoring the progress of schools nationwide, the Department of Education still let each state define its education goals, which resulted in mixed performance outcomes.
During the Obama administration, Common Core Standards spread throughout the nation.
Testing standards put increased pressure on subjects like math and non-fiction reading.
Paul Bersebach/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images
Welner said during the Bush and Obama administrations there was a "scaling up" of the federal government's role in K-12 education.
"[The federal government] had a pretty heavy hand in telling states what to do," Welner said.
In 2010, more than 40 states signed onto the Common Core Standards Initiative, a plan to develop standards that could be compared from state to state.
While Obama's Department of Education did not create or enforce the Common Core Standards, it played a major role in funding schools that adopted it, The New York Times reported.
Some of the ways the government stepped in through funding were the use of test scores to evaluate teachers and incentive pay to teachers with high-performing students.
The program faced significant backlash due to its unfamiliar ways of teaching subjects and reliance on test scores, which led teachers to change coursework to prioritize tested subjects, like non-fiction reading and math, over non-tested ones like history and science.
Obama's Every Student Succeeds Act replaced No Child Left Behind.
The act reduced the role of the federal government in education for the first time since 2001.
NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Obama's 2015 reauthorization of ESEA was the first change to the federal government's approach to education since No Child Left Behind. The Every Student Succeeds Act pushed schools to identify performance measures beyond test scores.
The act gave some power back to the states and narrowed the federal government's role in education for the first time since the "A Nation at Risk" report identified flaws in American schooling.
As a response to the widespread opposition to Common Core standards, ESSA also prohibited federal employees from trying to "influence, incentivize, or coerce a state to adopt the Common Core" or other national K-12 education standards.
Under ESSA, states develop their own performance standards and submit them for review and approval from the Department of Education, the department said.
The act's reduced federal role raised concerns over the proper implementation of standards that wouldn't leave disadvantaged students behind.
During his first administration, President Donald Trump pulled funding from K-12.
Trump's first administration focused on reducing the role of the federal government in education.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images
During the first Trump administration, efforts to reduce the Department of Education's role led to cuts in K-12 funding.
In 2018, Trump proposed merging the Department of Education with the Department of Labor to reduce the federal budget and combine the agencies' overlapping duties to better respond to market needs. While the measure, which required congressional approval, went nowhere, the idea of cutting the Department of Education prevailed.
The administration also focused on backing out of Obama-era protections in schools for vulnerable populations like transgender students.
It also advocated for school choice programs that allowed parents to choose between public, private, charter, virtual, or homeschool for their children. In 2019, Trump's education secretary, Betsy DeVos, announced a $5 billion tax credit funding scholarships for non-public schools.
Now, a second Trump administration could seek to dismantle the department.
The fight to dismantle the Department of Education continues as Linda McMahon seeks Congress confirmation.
However, the administration would need congressional approval to get rid of the department, and even then, most of the programs funded through the Department of Education wouldn't be eliminated.
"If the department is dismantled, those programs still exist," Welner said. "Congress has created and funded these programs, so they have to exist somewhere."
In her Senate hearing, Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon said the IDEA program would go back to the Department of Human Health and Services, where it originated before the formation of the Department of Education.
If the department were to be dismantled, the bulk of education programs would now be under the Department of Health and Human Services while the student loan portfolio would go to the Department of the Treasury, Welner said.
The possible dismantling of the Department of Education would be a symbolic move to maintain a campaign promise, but its real effects remain to be determined.
Lizzy Caplan spoke to Business Insider about the "Gambit" movie she was set to star in alongside Channing Tatum.
Kristina Bumphrey/Variety via Getty Images; Arnold Jerocki/Getty Images
Lizzy Caplan said the Channing Tatum-led "Gambit" movie she was set to costar in had "a really cool idea."
Caplan said the film was going to have a '30s screwball romantic comedy vibe set in the superhero world.
The movie was scrapped after the 2019 Disney-Fox merger, but Tatum played Gambit in "Deadpool & Wolverine."
Lizzy Caplan says the scrapped stand-alone "Gambit" movie with Channing Tatum would have been entertaining, but a project in the superhero genre isn't in the cards for her right now.
"It was a really cool idea," Caplan told Business Insider in the latest installment of our Role Play interview series. "It's kind of odd that it got scrapped. Those movies don't seem to ever get scrapped, but it did."
Tatum's uphill battle to get a movie about the X-Men character Remy LeBeau/Gambit (aka the Ragin' Cajun) off the ground has long been documented.
Five years after the character was portrayed by "Friday Night Lights" star Taylor Kitsch in the 2009 movie "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," Tatum, who previously expressed interest in playing Gambit, was confirmed to be taking over the role in a coming stand-alone film.
Tatum as Gambit in "Deadpool & Wolverine."
Marvel Studios
In the ensuing years, the movie was delayed by script rewrites and multiple director exits. Tatum, who was set to produce, even reportedly threw his hat in the ring for the director position.
Then, in 2017,Β VarietyΒ reported that Caplan was in talks to play the female lead in 20th Century Fox's "Gambit" film, though additional details were sparse.
Caplan told BI that not only did she sign on for the movie, but she also attended meetings with Tatum and others involved in the project.
"We got down the road, we were gonna shoot it," Caplan recalled. "I think there was a start date. I had had meetings with Channing, and there were a couple different... we had a director, then we didn't, but I had multiple meetings with Channing and the other producers."
Producer Simon Kinberg told IGN in 2018 that the "Gambit" movie would have a "romantic or sex comedy vibe," to fit with the New Orleans thief's persona.
"They wanted to do, like, a '30s kind of screwball romantic comedy set in that world, which would have been really fun," Caplan added.
Tatum as Gambit in "Deadpool & Wolverine."
Marvel Studios
It wasn't meant to be. The movie was killed after the 2019 Disney-Fox merger. Tatum told Variety in 2022 that the yearslong ordeal left him "traumatized."
"I shut off my Marvel machine," he said. "I haven't been able to see any of the movies. I loved that character. It was just too sad. It was like losing a friend because I was so ready to play him."
Tatum's efforts weren't for nothing, though.
The actor finally got to suit up as Gambit and fight baddies with a kinetically charged deck of playing cards and a glowing staff in the 2024 movie "Deadpool & Wolverine," to much fanfare.
Tatum's comedically over-the-top performance and sometimes indecipherable accent were a resounding hit with audiences, and the actor told Variety he's praying for another chance to play Gambit.
In a lengthy post shared on X days after the release of "Deadpool & Wolverine," Tatum thanked Deadpool actor Ryan Reynolds for giving him the opportunity to play Gambit.
"I thought I had lost Gambit forever. But he fought for me and Gambit," Tatum wrote, in part. " I will owe him probably forever. Cause I'm not sure how I could ever do something that would be equal to what this has meant to me. I love ya buddy."
Tatum as Gambit in "Deadpool & Wolverine."
Marvel Studios
While Tatum is itching to reprise his superhero role, Caplan has made peace with how things ended up.
"Let's just say that was, like, so many years ago," she told BI. "The 'Gambit' thing, that's when those movies were, I guess, probably the best they were. That's when they were dominating in every possible way. "
Caplan added that she's content to have avoided the pressure of being in a Marvel movie.
"I had a lot of stress about doing that kind of movie even then," she said. "So now I'm pretty OK not doing one of those movies. I can hear my manager screaming in the other room."
