>> hello and thanks for joining us on Chicago tonight.

I'm Nick Lumber.

Brandis Friedman has the evening off.

Here's what we're looking.

And executive order massively shrinks the Department of Education.

What the local consequences could be.

And the Trump administration's efforts to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military.

We hear from a former colonel in the trans community.

>> And now to some of today's top stories, the Trump administration doubles down on efforts to fire probationary federal workers.

The acting solicitor general earlier today filed an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to reverse a federal judge's order that the administration re-hire some 16,000 employees across 6 agencies.

The government says that amounts to a hijacking of federal authority.

judge who initially put a halt to the firing said the agency that handled the dismissals had no authority to do so.

The case is one of several legal challenges to mass firings of federal workers.

Chicago teachers and firefighters are coming together to press for new contracts.

>> We need to contact with people, not accounting for 4 years.

Back on the poise finally got cattrick some of their contract issues with 52,017 that's not acceptable.

And then for the teachers not undercut coming up in a year.

This is not acceptable.

This is about unity coming together, getting benefits.

>> Firefighters, local 2 union president Pat Cleary says the staffing shortfalls.

The CTU has been focusing on your issues at fire houses.

A solidarity rally came with the city and teachers union reportedly nearing a contract with the CTU reiterating its calls for more prep time.

More pay for veteran teachers and overhauling the teacher evaluation system.

No more editorials that the Chicago Sun-Times.

The announcement comes after word last week that some 20% of the paper's staff agreed to take a buyout among the journalists departing our editorial page editor, Lorraine Forte and board members, Marland Garcia and Thomas Frisbee.

The paper had already stopped endorsing candidates due to restrictions on non profits after the sometimes was bought by Chicago public media.

In a note to readers see PM's chief content officer says while unsigned editorials from the paper are ending, sometimes we'll still publish opinion piece is columns and letters to the editor.

Up next, what a dismantling of the U.S. Education Department could mean for Illinois.

>> Chicago tonight is made possible in part why the Alexander and John Nichols family.

The gym and K maybe family.

The Pope Brothers Foundation.

And the support of these donors.

>> President Donald Trump's push to dismantle the Department of Education is facing legal challenges that comes just days after Trump signed an executive order directing his education secretary to quote, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the department.

>> We're going to be returning education very simply back to the states where it belongs.

And this is a very popular thing to do, but much more importantly, it's a common sense thing to do and it's going to work.

>> But critics are pushing back on the president's move, including here in Illinois.

In a statement, the Illinois Federation of Teachers says, quote, Dismantling the Department of Education will destabilize working families and reward the rich and powerful at the expense of our students.

Joining us to discuss all of this, are to Scott, an associate professor in the College of Education at DePaul University?

Peter Cunningham, former assistant secretary of Education and Paul Vallas, former Chicago Public Schools, CEO.

Gentlemen, thank you all for joining us again on the program.

So the Trump administration, as we mentioned, already facing legal action here, there's a suit from a coalition, including the National Education Association and the NAACP.

They say the president is going beyond his constitutional authority here.

Liotta by way of background here, remind us some of the functions that the Department of Education performs.

Well, one of the functions that the education performs is really just providing education for everyone.

>> And so what is being proposed now is not a solution.

It's just a series of setbacks, but the cutoffs, the layoffs and cutting of the budget in transferring all of the different programs to different departments.

And it's to the problem.

One of the takeaways, though, is that lets us think about education for everyone, which now we see that education also includes student loans, also includes health nutritional values, but then also civil rights and rights related to title one elementary education all the way to title 9 for higher education.

Yeah, I want to get to some of those specific issues.

But, you know, Peter Trump says >> this move is is giving education back to the states.

I mean it, you know, in practical terms, what is the shift mean for school system say here in Illinois?

Well, it doesn't mean very much because the fact is states and districts control most of the funding for schools already hit.

>> The federal government has a very small footprint.

Basically, they just try and level up some funding for some vulnerable groups like students with disabilities, low-income kids, bilingual students, rural students, this special funding pass for each of those different segments.

And then as Scott was saying, they also do student loans.

But giving it back to the states is a bit of eye deceptive and by the way, I'm not even sure he really means that.

I mean, he already threatened the state of Maine to withhold funding of it and get dei program.

So I'm not convinced he really wants to give anything back to the states.

Do you think it's more of a bid for more control them?

I do think that is trying to consolidate control and is especially in the higher section now in the higher sector.

He's definitely trying to control the money that's going to the schools that they depend on the.

So what happened Columbia University.

And I think we're going to see a lot more of them.

>> You know, Paul Vallas says folks have reported the president doesn't have the power to completely eliminate the agency.

But what do you think is is motivating him to go after the department in this way?

Well, look, let's ice and that he wants to do what he says we want to do.

He wants to return primary responsibility to states.

You know, the Department of Education is really more or less a pass through, for example, the student loan program, which ultimately, I believe has been mismanaged.

If you look at obviously who doesn't seem to be carrying student loans these days could easily be done by Treasury of the grant programs can return to what was the successor of health education, welfare.

And and of course, when it comes to legal issues, do I think the Justice Department can certainly pick up the responsibilities that the U.S. Department of Education had responsibilities for in terms of, you know, up legal intervention and things like that one is discrimination.

So getting rid of the department.

I think Peter pointed out does not necessarily get rid of programs.

That's going to be another issue.

now he has said he's not going to be cutting these programs.

We'll see what ultimately happens.

But, you know, if you're really afraid of Trump and and the fact that he has an agenda is going an agenda.

One would argue that if he keeps the U.S. Department of Education dominated by his people, then he's going to be able to advance his agenda.

And he's been clear what his agenda He talked about school choice.

He caught talked about the expansion of school choice.

He talks about, you know, you know, reversing a lot of the legal issues that they were addressing in terms of dei, things like that.

So one might argue that with his appointees in the Department of Education of you maintain that department, he could be even more aggressive to advance his agenda.

even if there are functions that you think could be, you know, handled by other agencies, departments, things like that.

>> If you have any concerns about speed with which things are progressing here, you know, does it feel like this is moving it too quickly, a pace to be handled?

Well, you know, it's a very good question.

And I think that's a very good point.

They are moving fast on all fronts.

>> Look, it took some real debate and discussion to create the U.S. Department of Education in the first place.

As you know, it was embraced hope.

We wholeheartedly, for example, Cal final was health education.

Well, for not exactly right-wing conservative.

He was very critical in the Carter administration.

He did not want to see a separate department.

He felt that we encroach on local control and then of course, the head of the American Federation of Teachers was adamantly upholds shanker variable so air.

At the end of the day.

I mean, there is issue are you too fast?

And if you're not going to get rid of these programs, but these agencies that take responsibility for these programs, our are going to need time to ramp up.

So I think that's a very legitimate issue.

just got.

You know, you mentioned some of the functions that this that this department performs.

>> We we've learned that special education services nutrition programs will be absorbed by health and Human services.

Do you have concerns about how you know, students with disabilities or students who, you know, need those school lunches might be affected?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, Paul.

>> Said something that I think not accurate.

Brown, that these departments cannot handle the capacity.

In fact, the SBA is going to be cut down about 40%.

So they really won't have the capacity to do the student loans.

I think about even to this year, it's been 240 years since President John Adams wrote his famous quote Around education for the whole people.

Education for the whole people.

And so we need to think about education for the whole people.

That includes all the different health, all the different disabilities and those who are disenfranchised.

And so we have equality and that we are in.

So the other departments don't really get the idea of what education means for the country for democracy overall.

Yeah, look, you know, I have to respond to different if it can very quickly.

agriculture and go to school lunch program.

The really the responsibility for U.S. Department of Education for small Treasury is the most appropriate place.

Stand with us program this to partners that disaster.

I think.

>> Close to two-thirds of individuals who receive student loans and that not graduating from college and the discrimination go and the individuals ticket impacted the most are woman blacks simply are not graduating.

They're stuck with student loans.

So certainly there may be more appropriate agencies to manage these programs.

I mean, I don't see any reason, though, watches moving things around is somehow gonna make any this stuff better, OK, the issues this.

>> Is this a matter national interest and that is education and that of national interest.

Every president has said so until Donald Trump comes along and says we should be out of the business and he's taking people out of some really important work to make sure that this country is strong and can compete globally.

And there's plenty of evidence to show that we're falling behind.

>> Well, and you know, to that point about the administration of the loan program, we learned that for that portfolio is going to the small Business Administration, which is also been hit by large-scale layoffs.

I mean, do you have concerns about the size and complexity of that program?

Absolutely.

And they don't actually handle those loans and house.

They work with banks.

So they're gonna take the student loan program which was handled in house at the department education.

They're going to outsource it to banks, which is going to >> increase the cost of running it.

And there's no reason to think that it's going to run any better.

And I think that you have a lot of people who took a pause during the COVID era to payment.

They're coming back It's going to be a lot of chaos.

People are going to get lost.

Things are going to get lost people will be denied access to college and it'll be all.

It will be years before this thing settles down.

And, you know, millions of people will be affected.

So I think it's a disaster.

And like so many other things he's doing, it's not done with forethought.

It's just done with, you know, with with haste.

And with to, you know, no consideration for the people involved in what they're doing, who's going to be heard?

>> Well, and you know, we've been talking about, you know, attacks on, you know, universities largely related to, you know, diversity, equity, inclusion, type initiatives mean, Paul Vallas, you said that the Department of Education has long been sort of a political tool.

Is that what's happening now with?

You know, of course.

Yeah, I mean, this is all political look, virtually everything single president I think was the exception of Clinton.

And and Riley have 5 kind of advanced or agenda.

Not not.

I'm not making a value judgment on what they advance.

>> But the fact remains that Bush 40 about superintendent and the 3 different presidents and I felt they were always in front.

Bush wanted us to private use title one money to get the private companies to do to Obama administration advanced, you know, a standardized curriculum and testing.

Certainly they had their agenda and I'm not making a value judgment on that.

but the Biden administration, you know, forget about the dei issues, put them aside.

But the Biden administration, when they got the title one money when they got the COVID money relief money, they totally discriminating against private schools by only given a fraction of what they were entitled President's do advance their agenda.

And so and they have advanced through the U.S. Department of Education.

I just want to really clear.

There is control over the curriculum at the federal level and that wasn't on the Obama administration.

anyone trying to control the cricket the Trump administration.

Now that trying to rewrite tell people how to teach patriotic history.

>> Which means we're gonna teach things like slavery from both sides.

So they're the ones with driving, correct.

And they're the ones who insisting that diversity equity inclusion is somehow a dirty word.

So what's the opposite of diversity?

Lack of diversity with opposite equity in equity.

Exclusions.

So, I mean, I think that, you know, they're the ones with the agenda that's really, really it's hard to see them giving power back to the states any meaningful way.

>> Yeah.

And like I said, this is not a solution.

anything going back to an agenda that really should be about agenda, that progress is education.

This is a persistent trail of democracy use in the power democracy against his people is always supposed to be for the people goes back to 240 years ago as President Adam said, education for the whole people.

We've got about 30 seconds left.

But you Peter Cunningham, you mentioned educational outcomes, which, you know, the U.S. has long lagged behind other developed nations could moving to dismantle the Education department, affect our ability to close that gap.

It certainly won't help.

I mean, I don't see how one kid is gonna learn to read from just moving these program from one agency to another.

>> You want to really focus on helping kids learn to read support these programs.

Give the states and districts the freedom and the power to do what they're doing, which they have for the most part and make it a matter of national interest and let people know that we're going to be serious about.

Driving education, about making a difference in helping kids learn.

I don't see any of that coming from the Trump administration yet.

All right.

Well, we could probably talk about this for the rest of the show and I have a feeling we'll be doing so again in the future.

But for now we go to Scott, Peter Cunningham, Paul Ellis, thank you all for joining Thank you.

>> Up next, one on one with Trans veteran and military advocate Jennifer Pritzker a federal judge is blocking President Trump's attempt to ban transgender troops from serving in the military saying the policy is discriminatory and quote, soaked in animus.

The move comes after current and would-be service trans Transer vis members rather filed suit over the Trump administration's executive order, calling it, quote, character assassination based on nothing.

But administration officials want the judge to lift her injunction, arguing the ban has a grounding in medicine, not discrimination.

Joining us now with more on this is Jennifer Pritzker, retired lieutenant colonel of the United States Army, as well as a businesswoman and philanthropist in the interest of full disclosure.

She is a supporter of both Wt Tw and our sister station WFM T Colonel Pritzker.

Welcome back to Chicago tonight.

Well, thank you very much for having me.

the Pentagon on Friday released new guidance on transgender military personnel saying, quote, the Department of Defense will review service member's medical records and within 45 days, give them self assessment.

Questionnaires to determine whether they have a current history diagnosis, history or symptoms of gender dysphoria.

Doj is arguing in court as we mentioned, this means the ban is somehow based on a medical diagnosis, not anti trans agenda.

What's your reaction to Well, for starters.

What what?

What questions today proposed to put on the on the questionnaire.

What what are they looking for?

What is the criteria for either retention?

Discharge?

And I think it's only fair.

That that be disclosed to the people who are taking the questionnaire and I don't know why the why don't they just give that everybody right?

I know when when I was in when I was in the Army duty we still have health and welfare inspections on both sides that means they go through the barracks looking for contraband and everybody in the are in the armed forces, its drug tested, everybody.

The newest recruit, the most senior general or Admiral.

So I think they need to take a war, even-handed approach.

On this issue.

>> Well, backing up a little bit, what what kind of an impact do you think a ban on trans people serving could have on the armed forces?

Well, it's going to be tremendous disruption.

It's going to affect morale, discipline unit, cohesion.

Combat readiness.

And enormous leaks.

Pensive 4.

Either.

No no return on investment.

40 minutes.

For example.

Prostate processing a civilian in the any branch of the armed forces in the first year, easily runs $100,000.

Let's you know, create privates.

Not sure.

No, because it's 6 months.

Minimum 4 to 6 months, minimum of entry level training.

And then when they show up for the unit, it takes another 3 to 6 months for them.

The becoming net positive asset to the I think we like that trying to do some rough calculation or something like 5,000 to 15,000 transgender troops.

And multiple do the math on that.

You come up with a number like 500 Million.

Just in the what was invested in year one, no huge strap a leak.

That's to cost us a full colonel in the Space Force.

Who's aerospace engineer.

You spent millions on this person.

And what is it about being transgender provided they meet the standards for performance and qualification.

What's the basis?

So, for example?

You getting through parachute school, we qualified military parachutist.

You gotta pull ups lots lots of push-ups.

Because to control the parachute you have to pull on risers.

Those are straps that attach the main canopy and that's what controls you.

And that can make the difference between when you crash and burn on the drop zone and get carried away an ambulance or you land safely and walk away.

If you want people to parachute out of airplanes.

One of the criteria is how many push-ups can they Pull UPS?

Can they do?

a lot of other qualifications?

That's the same all specialties in the military.

Well, and, you know, you mentioned the for the expense that goes into into training and all that, you know, kind of being.

>> Left on the table.

There's also, you know, the argument from backers of the ban who say medical treatments for trans folks in the military are cost prohibitive.

Do you think the numbers back that up?

No, they do not.

>> First of all, you're dealing with a relatively small group of people.

Also a high percentage.

I think it's something like 50% do not require.

any medical care or very slight medical care.

So, you somebody wants to see a psychologist, psychiatrist.

2 discover where they are terms of.

Gender dysphoria.

That really doesn't cost very much.

Brent.

And if anything.

The treatment, if properly applied.

We'll save money in the long run.

Norton is Asian is any better than people in it.

And if you invest productively and their welfare.

You will have a better organization.

But the numbers.

I just just not there.

There was some polling from from Gallup that showed.

>> In 2019, 71% of us adults favored openly trans men and women serving in the military went down to 66% in 2021.

58 1% this year.

Why do you think that support might be declining?

The current administration?

Has made a massive, really obsessive effort.

2.

The achievements of transgender people to philonise them to spread a lot of dis-information.

And most people don't have the time.

Where the energy is are busy making a living.

To sort out.

Well, what's this information?

What is information?

And because there's so few transgender people.

Many people never encountered such a person.

One interesting numbers.

estimated 234,000.

Transgender veterans.

And it turns out that transgender people are.

Twice as likely to serve in the armed forces.

Then people who are not transgender.

So it's it's it's it's just amazing.

Now the book bans many other actions taken all levels of government.

2 really marginalize.

a transgender person.

We've got about 30 seconds left open.

You know, I know recent years that military sometimes struggle to meet its recruitment goals.

Do you think something like this could make it harder for them to record?

Definitely.

Definitely.

I think it will make recruiting recruiting always been a challenge.

Recruiting and retention.

See, that's the other part of volunteer force that people often overlook.

Once you sign somebody up once you've got their enlistment out of them in order to get the full return on investment.

You to re Well, that's what's really going to affect in this very ban.

It's something that is going to be detrimental.

To the welfare.

And functioning forces.

And it's it's it's I think it's terrible.

What's being done to our fellow citizens who have taken the time and the trouble and willingness to sacrifice themselves.

All right.

Well, much more to say on this Frank will have to leave it there for now.

Jennifer Pritzker, thank you very much.

Thank you for having me.

And that's our show for this Monday night.

Join us tomorrow night at 5.30, and a special time 10, 30.

One-on-one with Senator Tammy Duckworth on veteran layoffs.

The local impact of federal funding cuts and much more.

>> Now for all of us here in Chicago tonight, I'm Nick Lumber.

Thank you for watching.

Stay healthy and safe and have a good night.

>> Woes caption was made possible by Robert a cliff and quickly are Chicago personal injury and wrongful death.

It