Strengthening Job Corps Act of 2025

— 348 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise materials, private school tuition, transportation and more—accounts modeled after the accounts in Arizona, Florida, West Virginia, and seven other states. l Members of Congress should design the same account system for students in active-duty military families, including students attending schools that receive funding under the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).18 Heritage Foundation research found that if even 10 percent of the students eli- gible for accounts under such a proposal transferred from an assigned school to an education savings account, the change for the sending district would be 0.1 percent of that school district’s K–12 budget. Even in heavily impacted districts (districts with a large number of students receiving Impact Aid), the budgetary effect would be less than 2 percent. Yet these children would then have the chance to receive a customized education that meets their unique needs. As with state ESA programs, families who are homeschooling are distinct in statute from families who use an ESA to customize an education at home. Furthermore, research from the Claremont Institute used documents pro- vided by a whistleblower demonstrating how educators at Department of Defense schools around the world are using radical gender theory and critical race theory in their lessons. This instructional material discards biology in favor of political indoctrination and applies critical race theory’s core tenets advocating for more racial discrimination. Such ideas are highly unpopular among parents, accord- ing to nationally representative surveys, and the course material attempts to indoctrinate students with radical ideas about race and the ambiguous concept of “gender.” Finally, schools on tribal lands and under the auspices of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are among the worst-performing public schools in the country. Research from Rep. Burgess Owens’ office reports that the graduation rate for BIE students is 53 percent, lower than the average for Native American students in public schools around the country, and nearly 30 percentage points lower than the national average for all students. In 2015, Arizona lawmakers expanded the state’s education savings account program to include children living on tribal lands, and by 2021, nearly 400 Native American children were using the accounts. l Federal officials should design a federal education savings account option for all children attending BIE schools. The next Administration should make the K–12 systems under federal juris- diction examples of quality learning opportunities and education freedom. — 349 — Department of Education Washington should convert some of the lowest-performing public school systems in the country into areas defined by choices, creating rigorous learning options for all children and from all backgrounds, income levels, and ethnicities. Expand Education Choice Through Portability of Existing Federal Funds Setting education policy on the right track long term would require sunsetting the U.S. Department of Education altogether. Doing so would not result in fewer resources and less assistance for children with special needs or from low-income families. Rather, closing the federal behemoth would better target existing taxpayer resources already set aside for these students by shifting oversight responsibilities to federal and state agencies that have more expertise in helping these populations. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the federal law gov- erning taxpayer spending on K–12 students with special needs. The law stipulates that students have a right to a “free and appropriate education,” and 95 percent of children with special needs attend assigned public schools. The education is not always appropriate, however: Special education is fraught with legal battles. Some argue that the education of children with special needs is the most litigated area of K–12 education. Thus, despite a nearly 50-year-old federal law that sees regular revision and reauthorization and approximately $13.5 billion per year in federal taxpayer spending, parents still struggle to establish intervention plans for their students with public school district officials regarding the physical and educational requirements for their children with special needs. State-level education options often exclusively serve children with special needs for these very reasons. Florida, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina, and North Carolina, to name a few states, all have education savings accounts or K–12 private school scholarship options for children with special needs. l Federal lawmakers should move IDEA oversight and implementation to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. l Officials should then consider revising IDEA to require that a child’s portion of the federal taxpayer spending under the law be made available to families so parents can choose how and where a child learns. l IDEA already allows families to choose a private school under certain conditions, but federal officials should update the law so that families can use their child’s IDEA spending for textbooks, education therapies, personal tutors, and other learning expenses, similar to the way in which parents use education savings accounts in states such as Arizona and Florida. These micro-education savings accounts

— 80 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise independent constitutional status nor separate moral legitimacy. Therefore, career civil servants by themselves should not lead major policy changes and reforms. The creation of the Senior Executive Service was the top career change intro- duced by the 1978 Carter–Campbell Civil Service Reform Act. Its aim was to professionalize the career service and make it more responsible to the democrat- ically elected commander in chief and his political appointees while respecting the rights due to career employees, very much including those in the top positions. The new SES would allow management to be more flexible in filling and reassigning executive positions and locations beyond narrow specialties for more efficient mission accomplishment and would provide pay and large bonuses to motivate career performance. The desire to infiltrate political appointees improperly into the high career civil service has been widespread in every Administration, whether Democrat or Republican. Democratic Administrations, however, are typically more successful because they require the cooperation of careerists, who generally lean heavily to the Left. Such burrowing-in requires career job descriptions for new positions that closely mirror the functions of a political appointee; a special hiring authority that allows the bypassing of veterans’ preference as well as other preference categories; and the ability to frustrate career candidates from taking the desired position. President Reagan’s OPM began by limiting such SES burrowing-in, arguing that the proper course was to create and fill political positions. This simultane- ously promotes the CSRA principle of political leadership of the bureaucracy and respects the professional autonomy of the career service. But this requires that career SES employees should respect political rights too. Actions such as career staff reserving excessive numbers of key policy positions as “career reserved” to deny them to noncareer SES employees frustrate CSRA intent. Another evasion is the general domination by career staff on SES personnel evaluation boards, the opposite of noncareer executives dominating these critical meeting discussions as expected in the SES. Career training also often underplays the political role in leadership and inculcates career-first policy and value viewpoints. Frustrated with these activities by top career executives, the Trump Adminis- tration issued Executive Order 1395724 to make career professionals in positions that are not normally subject to change as a result of a presidential transition but who discharge significant duties and exercise significant discretion in formulating and implementing executive branch policy and programs an exception to the com- petitive hiring rules and examinations for career positions under a new Schedule F. It ordered the Director of OPM and agency heads to set procedures to prepare lists of such confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions and prepare procedures to create exceptions from civil service rules when careerists hold such positions, from which they can relocate back to the regular civil service after such service. The order was subsequently reversed by President — 81 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy Biden25 at the demand of the civil service associations and unions. It should be reinstated, but SES responsibility should come first. Managing Personnel in a Union Environment. Historically, unions were thought to be incompatible with government management. There is a natural limit to the bargaining power of private-sector unions, but the financial bottom line of public-sector unions is not similarly constrained. If private-sector unions push too hard a bargain, they can so harm a company or so reduce efficiency that their employer is forced to go out of business and eliminate union jobs altogether. There is no such limit in government, which cannot go out of business, so demands can be excessive without negatively affecting employee and union bottom lines. Even Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt considered union representa- tion in the federal government to be incompatible with democracy. Striking and even threats of bargaining and delay were considered acts against the people and thus improper. It was not until President John Kennedy that union representation in the federal government was recognized—and then merely by executive order. Labor bargaining was not set in statute until the Carter Administration was forced by Congress to do so in order to pass the CSRA, although all bargaining was placed under OPM review. The CSRA was able to maintain strong management rights for the OPM and agencies and forbade collective bargaining on pay and benefits as well as manage- ment prerogatives. Over time, OPM, FLRA, and agencies’ personnel offices and courts, especially in Democratic Administrations, narrowed management rights so that labor bargaining expanded as management rights contracted. But the man- agement rights are still in statute, have been enforced by some Administrations, and should be enforced again by any future OPM and agency managements, which should not be intimidated by union power. Rather than being daunted, President Trump issued three executive orders: l Executive Order 13836, encouraging agencies to renegotiate all union collective bargaining agreements to ensure consistency with the law and respect for management rights;26 l Executive Order 13837, encouraging agencies to prevent union representatives from using official time preparing or pursuing grievances or from engaging in other union activity on government time;27 and l Executive Order 13839, encouraging agencies both to limit labor grievances on removals from service or on challenging performance appraisals and to prioritize performance over seniority when deciding who should be retained following reductions-in-force.28

— 606 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise and wasted resources, and artificially increases consumer prices. It is a significant problem that is difficult to address at the federal level. l Congress should ensure that interstate compacts for occupational license recognition that are federally funded do not require new or additional qualifications (that is, qualifications that do not originate from state governments themselves) for licensed professionals to participate. l Congress should ensure that well-qualified licensees are not locked out of the job market by restrictive government programs funded by the federal government. (For instance, medical doctors must complete residency training to practice, and because Medicare provides funding for significantly fewer residencies than there are doctors, sizable numbers of MDs are locked out of the job market every year.) Wagner–Peyser Staffing Flexibility. State agencies that administer unem- ployment benefits and workforce development programs should be able to hire the best people to do the job and should not be required to use state employees if a contractor can do the job better. Further, the federal government should not force a state to use non-union labor or union labor for these positions. l DOL should repromulgate the Trump-era staffing flexibility rule, and Congress should codify it. WORKER RETIREMENT SAVINGS, ESG, AND PENSION REFORMS l Remove ESG considerations from ERISA. Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) investing is a relatively recent strategy promoted by large asset managers that focuses not only on a company’s bottom line, but also on the company’s compliance with liberal political views on climate change, racial quotas, abortion, and other issues. The ESG movement has focused especially on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. For example, ESG proponents advocate for divestment from oil and gas companies or the exercise of investor influence to reduce oil and gas production. ESG considerations unrelated to investor risks and returns necessarily sacrifice trust law’s traditional sole focus on investment returns for collateral interests. And while individual investors may prefer to invest in “green” companies, “woke” companies, or companies with greater board diversity, and may even be willing to sacrifice some financial gains to do — 607 — Department of Labor and Related Agencies so, the question relevant to DOL is whether, and under what conditions, fiduciaries should be permitted to follow this path as well. While Americans are free to invest their own savings however they wish, in ERISA, Congress imposed strict duties on employer-sponsored worker retirement plans as a prophylactic protection of workers’ retirement security in general. Recognizing the unique status of employer-managed retirement savings, in ERISA, Congress required that fiduciaries exclusively seek the best interests of plan beneficiaries. Because ESG investing necessarily puts other considerations before the interests of the beneficiary, ESG investing by plan managers is an inappropriate strategy under ERISA. l DOL should prohibit investing in ERISA plans on the basis of any factors that are unrelated to investor risks and returns. l DOL should return to the Trump Administration’s approach of permitting only the consideration of pecuniary factors in ERISA. However, this approach should not preclude the consideration of legitimate non-ESG factors, such as corporate governance, supply chain investment in America, or family-supporting jobs. l DOL should consider taking enforcement and/or regulatory action to subject investment in China to greater scrutiny under ERISA. Many large retirement and pension plans remain invested in China despite its lack of compliance with U.S. accounting standards and state control over all aspects of private capital. Alternative View. Some conservatives believe that ERISA plan investments should be made solely on a pecuniary basis and the consideration of any non-pe- cuniary factor, ESG or otherwise, should be prohibited. Additionally, other conservatives believe that even though ESG investing is often not a sound finan- cial strategy, it is not wrong for retirement plans to offer ESG investment options so long as individuals explicitly acknowledge and choose to pursue investment options that do not exclusively maximize pecuniary gains. Thrift Savings Plan. The Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is the retirement savings benefit plan for most federal employees and many former employees. The TSP is managed by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board (FRTIB). At over $800 billion in assets under management, the TSP is one of the largest retirement plans in the world.