Radicals, Zealots, and Marxists: The Far-Right War on Public Education and the Demonisation of Care
Since when did protecting children become radical?
Trump’s war on public education frames care as extremism. I explore how attacks on disabled students’ rights and public servants like me reveal a broader agenda: profit, control, and the destruction of equity.
Introduction
“We will close the Department of Education, which has been overtaken by radicals, zealots and Marxists.” That was the campaign promise, and with the confirmation of Elizabeth McMahon, it is clear this was not mere political theatre. Her appointment marks a calculated escalation in a decades-long project to dismantle public education, hollow out its regulatory power, and render it little more than a shell for private profit and ideological conformity. Yet it bears asking: when did the act of protecting children’s rights become zealotry? When did ensuring that schools serve all learners—particularly disabled, marginalised, or minoritised children—become radical? And what, precisely, is so dangerous about a Marxist working in public service?
The answer lies not in any genuine threat posed by advocates or critical thinkers within government, but in the discomfort such individuals cause for those intent on stripping public institutions of their protective functions. The demonisation of care—of those who believe schools should be safe, inclusive spaces—and the vilification of advocacy as “radical” or “Marxist” serve a distinct purpose: to dismantle the social safety net and disarm any opposition to the total marketisation of education. One need look no further than the federal protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to see what is under attack. The Due Process procedures embedded within IDEA are designed to safeguard the rights of disabled students and their families, ensuring access to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and providing recourse when schools fail to meet their obligations. These legal safeguards are not radical—they are essential, and they are legally binding. Yet under McMahon’s leadership, with a mandate to “cut red tape” and “reduce burdens,” it is precisely these protections that face elimination under the guise of deregulation.
This is not about efficiency or governance. It is about power—about rendering children’s rights optional, contingent on profit margins, and subject to ideological litmus tests. The real radicals are not those who advocate for equity and care, but those who seek to destroy the institutions that provide them. What is truly at stake is not whether a so-called Marxist works in the Department of Education, but whether public education will continue to exist in any meaningful form at all.
The McMahon Confirmation and the Plan to Gut the DoE
McMahon’s confirmation to lead the Department of Education is far from a routine appointment; it is the latest manoeuvre in a deliberate campaign to gut the agency from within. Her background—rooted in private sector ties and a well-documented hostility toward federal oversight—made her the ideal candidate for an administration bent on dismantling public institutions. During her confirmation hearing, McMahon faced little resistance from Republican lawmakers, who praised her commitment to “parental rights” and “educational freedom”—well-worn euphemisms for defunding public schools, promoting voucher schemes, and undermining civil rights protections. Her confirmation is not an outlier; it is entirely consistent with Trump’s stated aim to abolish the Department of Education altogether, under the claim that it has been captured by “radicals, zealots and Marxists.”
What this appointment makes clear is that McMahon’s role is not to lead the department, but to neutralise it. She is part of a broader ideological takeover that seeks to erode the federal government’s ability to regulate and enforce educational equity, especially for disabled, queer, racialised, and other marginalised students. Rather than strengthening public education, her remit is to “streamline” it—code for cutting regulations, defunding oversight, and diverting public funds to private, often for-profit, educational ventures. This follows a familiar Trump-era pattern: appoint those who are fundamentally opposed to the mission of the agency they lead, thereby ensuring its gradual collapse from within (aka, enshitification).
McMahon’s ascension thus serves two purposes. First, it advances the strategic dismantling of the Department’s regulatory power, particularly in areas such as special education, civil rights enforcement, and Title IX compliance. Second, it legitimises the narrative that public education is a failing enterprise in need of “market solutions,” further opening the door to private interests that stand to profit from the chaos. In truth, her confirmation is not about service or reform; it is about conquest—the conquest of public education by those who see it not as a public good, but as a commodity to be harvested.
The Demonisation of Advocacy and Care
One of the most insidious elements of the McMahon confirmation—and the rhetoric surrounding it—is the deliberate framing of advocacy and care as extremist acts. The article covering her appointment makes clear that efforts to protect children through policies such as social-emotional learning, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and trauma-informed practices have all been cast as evidence of radical overreach. The simple notion that schools should be safe, affirming environments for all students—particularly those who have been historically marginalised—is treated not as common sense, but as a dangerous ideology. This is no accident. It is part of a cultural strategy designed to reframe care as coercion and to paint those who work for inclusion and justice as zealots imposing a radical agenda.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the attack on the procedural safeguards under the IDEA. The Due Process provisions—intended to ensure that disabled students have access to FAPE—are precisely the kind of protections that McMahon and her supporters decry as bureaucratic burdens. These procedures allow families to challenge school districts that fail to meet their obligations, and they exist because of decades of advocacy from disabled people and their allies. Yet, in the current political climate, the enforcement of these legal rights is characterised as zealotry. Those who insist on equitable treatment for disabled students are accused of pushing a radical agenda—simply because they expect the law to be upheld.
This redefinition of advocacy as extremism serves multiple purposes. It delegitimises those who fight for justice within the education system, silences dissent, and creates a chilling effect for anyone who dares to challenge inequity. It also prepares the ground for stripping away the very protections that make public education accessible to all. By equating Due Process, DEI, and care work with Marxist ideology, the right positions itself not as dismantling rights, but as defending against a supposed ideological assault. In reality, the only assault is on the rights of children, and the so-called radicals are those ensuring these rights are respected.
This is the heart of the matter: when the act of safeguarding children’s wellbeing is framed as radical, it becomes easier to justify abandoning them. When legal protections for disabled students are called “red tape,” it becomes easier to erase them. And when those who uphold these protections are branded zealots, it becomes easier to purge them from public service. This is not merely an attack on policy—it is an attack on the very idea that care, inclusion, and equity have a place in public life.
Marxists in Civil Service: A Thought Experiment
In the fevered rhetoric of the current political moment, to question power is to expose oneself to accusations of disloyalty. Nowhere is this more evident than in the way federal civil servants are being subjected to ideological purity tests, with terms like “Marxist” deployed not to describe actual political beliefs, but to signal deviation from capitalist, white supremacist, and settler colonialist norms. The recent wave of attacks on public workers—particularly those engaged in DEI efforts or safeguarding vulnerable populations—has less to do with their actual policies or practices, and more to do with policing thought and allegiance. A civil servant who defends the rights of disabled students is cast as a radical. A public employee who points out that defunding education will cause real harm is accused of zealotry. In this climate, to care is to be suspect.
Take, for instance, the analysis from the EdTrust blog, which simply outlines how the closure or gutting of the DoE would directly harm students with disabilities. It is not a polemic, nor does it call for any radical overhaul of the system. It simply describes, in clear terms, what will happen if the federal safeguards under IDEA are stripped away: students will lose access to their legal rights, families will be left without recourse, and schools will no longer be accountable to provide even a basic education to those most in need. This is not Marxism—it is common sense. And yet, in the current climate, simply stating these facts is enough to be labelled a zealot, or worse.
What is truly dangerous is not the presence of a Marxist—or any critical thinker—in public service, but the absence of people willing to speak the truth. When public servants are selected not for their expertise or dedication, but for their loyalty to a particular ideology of deregulation and profit, corruption and cruelty follow. The real threat is not that someone might care too much, but that no one will be left to care at all. Ideological diversity in civil service is not a threat to democracy; it is essential to it. The presence of individuals who challenge dominant narratives and advocate for marginalised communities ensures that power remains accountable and that government remains capable of serving the public good.
We have seen this playbook before. During the McCarthy era, accusations of communist sympathies were used to purge not only federal employees but also educators, artists, and intellectuals—anyone who dared to imagine a more just and equitable society. Today’s cries of “Marxist” function in much the same way: to silence critique, to suppress dissent, and to render invisible the real consequences of policy decisions. But refusing to name harm is not neutrality; it is complicity. If defending disabled students, calling out injustice, and insisting on care are now considered radical acts, then perhaps it is not the advocates who are out of step—it is the system itself.
The Real Agenda: Profit, Power, and Control
Taken together, these developments are not isolated incidents but part of a coherent and deliberate agenda. The confirmation of McMahon reveals appointments aimed not at governance but at dismantling the very institutions they are meant to oversee. The reframing of protective policies—like due process under IDEA, DEI initiatives, and trauma-informed education—as dangerous zealotry allows for the erosion of safeguards whilst blaming those who seek to uphold them. The articles I’ve referenced lay bare the wider campaign to purge so-called “undesirable” ideologies from public life—an attempt to ensure that only those loyal to a narrow, profit-driven worldview can remain within the corridors of power. This is not about public service; it is about ideological conformity and the elimination of dissent.
This ideological reframing serves a larger purpose: the accelerated transfer of public goods—education, healthcare, housing—into private hands. It is about deregulation not for efficiency’s sake, but to eliminate accountability. It is about surveillance—not to protect children, but to monitor and control populations deemed problematic. And it is about the destruction of collective rights—so that power remains concentrated among those already enriched by the system. This is settler-colonialism and white supremacy manifest, but turned inward. The tools used to colonise and subjugate abroad are now being used to control and extract from the domestic population, especially those already marginalised. What we are witnessing is neoliberalism in its final, cannibalistic phase—the American Empire consuming itself, as Lenin anticipated in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.
Lenin observed that, in its imperial decline, capitalism becomes parasitic and decays from within. We are living that decay. The attacks on so-called “radicals” and “Marxists” serve as cover for this hollowing out. The real aim is not to protect children or ensure educational excellence—it is to liquidate the public sphere and sell it off to the highest bidder. It is to ensure that capital, and capital alone, has the final say in who receives an education, who is protected, and who is discarded. These are not policy decisions. They are acts of enclosure—closing off access, denying rights, and securing profit in the midst of decline. And as ever, those who dare to care are framed not as defenders of the public good, but as enemies of the state.
Final thoughts …
If protecting children is now considered radical, then so be it—I will gladly be radical. If empathy, equity, and the defence of the most vulnerable are now labelled as “zealotry,” then let me be zealous. If speaking truth, naming harm, and daring to care are the acts of a Marxist, then I wear that name proudly. In this era of Newspeak, where words are twisted to mean their opposite and care is framed as extremism, I will not shrink from these labels. I claim them—not as pejoratives, but as badges of honour, because if these are the terms used for those who defend public institutions, fight for disabled students, and refuse to let public education be sold off piece by piece, then I am guilty as charged.
I am visible—openly Marxist, openly Trans—and that, in the current political climate, paints a particular target on my back. But I am also autistic, and my sense of justice will not allow me to remain silent in the face of such unrelenting nonsense as flows daily from the Tangerine Tyrant and his minions. My autistic, gestalt-processing brain is a powerful tool—a gift I use to understand, to connect, and to critique the systems around me. And I will not apologise for using it to say something about the world we are in and where we are heading.
The real radicals are not those of us who fight to preserve education, care, and equity. The real radicals are those destroying it all for profit, seeking to remake society in the image of greed. A better future demands that we challenge the labels, speak the truth, and defend public institutions—schools, services, rights—with everything we have. If that is radical, then may we all have the courage to be radicals. Not because we seek to destroy, but because we refuse to let the world be destroyed around us in silence.