Unitary executive theory might sound like dry political jargon, but it’s at the heart of debates reshaping how the American government—and potentially education policy—functions. Despite some sensational headlines, the theory doesn’t aim to eliminate the three-branch structure of government; rather, it emphasizes the president’s control over the executive branch, specifically around the ability to remove officials. But why should educators and policymakers care?
Education policy, like other areas managed by specialized agencies, often depends on a certain degree of political independence to ensure expertise rather than short-term politics drive decisions. Agencies like the Institute for Education Sciences (IES) and the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) are designed precisely with this independence, with leadership terms deliberately spanning multiple presidential administrations.
However, under the Trump administration, these agencies face new challenges as unitary executive theory pushes the boundaries of presidential power. Recent moves by the administration, including contract cancellations and the politically motivated dismissal of key appointees, suggest a test of how far executive authority can stretch.
Why does this matter for education? If the independence of agencies like IES and NAGB is compromised, education policy could increasingly become a political football, undermining long-term, evidence-based educational improvement. For educators and policymakers alike, understanding this debate isn’t just about constitutional theory—it’s about safeguarding the stability and integrity of our educational institutions.
