While he does not support outright dismantling the Department of Education, Rep. Dave Min isn’t opposed to specific reforms for the federal department.
Min, D-Irvine, said the department provides important funding and other services to public school systems in California and across the country. He said he opposes President Donald Trump’s suggestion that the department be eliminated or dismantled.
“I know that many Republicans would like to see us privatize education, but as the product of California public schools, I know that public education is the foundation of economic mobility and the gateway to the American dream,” said Min, a freshman lawmaker, adding that the department “does so much good for the country, including in the areas I represent.”
This year, as legislative work in Washington, D.C., gets underway, we’re reintroducing our readers to the six House members who represent at least a portion of Orange County, veterans and newcomers alike. We asked each lawmaker five questions, tailored to their policy expertise, committee assignments or votes.
Min, 48, represents California’s 47th Congressional District in Orange County. He is a former state legislator and UC Irvine law professor. Before he was elected to Congress, Min, a University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business alumnus, had testified on Capitol Hill various times on banking and housing policy issues.
Read on to find out more about how Min suggests Congress could balance eliminating antisemitism on college campuses while protecting speech, his work on a task force that considers legal challenges to the Trump administration, and more.
Q: President Trump has floated tying disaster relief aid for California to a voter ID law. When you were in the state legislature, you authored a bill prohibiting local governments from requiring voter ID at the polls. As budget talks are underway, what is the likelihood, do you think, that conditions, like voter ID, get attached to a disaster relief package? Are House Democrats in a position to block it?
A: Placing any conditions on federal disaster aid, particularly politically driven conditions based on fringe conspiracy theories, is unprecedented and un-American. That is why I authored an amendment to call on Congress to reject conditions on federal disaster aid, and it’s why I wrote a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson urging him to disavow his baseless claims of voter fraud and to oppose conditions on aid to California wildfire victims.
When disasters have struck other parts of the country, whether these are hurricanes or floods or tornadoes or anything else, Californians have stepped up to help out. That is the American way. United we stand, divided we fall. And if House Republicans want to try to attach conditions to Californians in need, they should think carefully about the precedent they are setting. Because the next time a disaster hits, it might be Johnson’s district that is impacted or Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s. And if they are now setting the precedent that we are going to play politics with natural disaster relief, they are opening a Pandora’s box of mischief going forward.
I am hopeful that our Republican colleagues, especially Californians like Young Kim and Ken Calvert, will lower the temperatures here and do what is right.
Q: You campaigned on a promise to address climate change and the causes of climate-related issues. President Trump has already started to redirect the federal government’s priorities away from his predecessor’s climate agenda. But do you see a specific climate policy that the federal government and Democrats could come together on?
A: I am proud to serve on the House Natural Resources Committee, where I will be working to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, cut our carbon emissions and improve our wildfire resilience. Recently, I introduced the Aquatic Biodiversity Preservation Act, which would promote critical conservation efforts at home in Southern California. From helping endangered species recover to protecting food sources, my bill to safeguard biodiversity in our coastal ecosystems is crucial, common-sense legislation. I am hopeful that my colleagues across the aisle will join me in support of this bill.
Q: You’ve been critical of the role Elon Musk is playing in the new administration, particularly his significant access to federal agencies. How can Congress keep Musk and his team’s work in check, particularly if any of his work ultimately breaks the law?
A: My colleagues and I are working closely to keep Elon Musk and his DOGE associates in check. Recently, I went to the Treasury Department to seek answers from Musk. I was denied entry, but that didn’t stop me from speaking out about the threat Musk poses to Social Security and Medicare or the clearly illegal and unconstitutional nature of his actions.
As a member of the House Oversight Committee, I also co-led the CLEAR Act, legislation that explicitly subjects DOGE to FOIA transparency requirements, which would give us needed transparency into what Musk and his associates are doing. Additionally, I was appointed by House Democratic leadership to serve on a Rapid Response Task Force and Litigation Group, which is a group organized to determine the best legal pathways for standing up to Musk’s illegal government overreach. We are discussing and reviewing all of our options, including litigation and legislation.
But ultimately, since House Democrats are in the minority, the most important tool we have right now is the will of the people. We need Americans to understand what Elon Musk is doing — gaining access to all of our personal information and the Treasury’s payment systems and putting himself in a position to unilaterally decide who will receive the funds appropriated by Congress and which agencies will be closed down — is not only clearly a usurpation of Congress’ exclusive authority under the Constitution to create laws and appropriate money, but is also deeply immoral and have massive impacts on working Americans. Defunding Head Start, shutting down programs to provide baby formula to poor families, stopping funding for clinical cancer trials — these are fundamentally wicked acts that also will have devastating effects on our economy.
Q: President Trump is weighing dismantling the Department of Education, something a number of conservatives have called for in recent years. Notably, its spending — and creation — is determined by Congress. Is there an appetite in the House to eliminate the Education Department? Are there any specific reforms you would like to see with the department, rather than outright eliminating it?
A: Donald Trump and Elon Musk have zero authority under the Constitution to “delete” (as Elon Musk recently has put it) any agency created and funded by Congress, including the Department of Education. The fact that they are trying to do this has put this country in a Constitutional crisis. If they want to eliminate the Department of Education, there is exactly one legally permissible pathway to doing that, and that is through an act (or acts) of Congress. I am happy to have that debate.
While I support reforms to the Department of Education, I also believe this department does so much good for the country, including in the area I represent. I know that many Republicans would like to see us privatize education, but as the product of California public schools, I know that public education is the foundation of economic mobility and the gateway to the American dream. Public schools in our community rely on funding from the Department of Education, especially when it comes to serving students with disabilities.
But Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, so ultimately the decision on whether and how we might proceed with the Department of Education lies with them. But I want to emphasize again that the Constitutional authority to make this decision lies with Congress, not with President Trump, and certainly not with Elon Musk, an unelected person who was ostensibly appointed to a low-level and temporary “special government employee” status, which has zero legal authority to make big decisions like closing down an agency or department.
Q: The president has asked higher education institutions to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff” related to antisemitism on campus. Your district includes UC Irvine, where protests and encampments broke out in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. Are you concerned about what this directive would mean for free speech on college campuses? Is there something lawmakers could do to both foster free speech and the right to demonstrate on college campuses while ensuring students are safe from antisemitism or other forms of discrimination and prejudice?
A: With the growing rise in antisemitism, as well as other forms of hate, we have a renewed responsibility to eradicate hate in every form. As many of my constituents have seen, I have tried to consistently stand up and denounce hate of all forms.
As a former faculty member at UC Irvine, I am very familiar with the tension between encouraging free expression and also creating an environment where everyone feels safe and free from hate or persecution. Finding that balance, which also includes important legal considerations such as the rights guaranteed under the First Amendment as well as a number of laws prohibiting hate, can be tricky in practice. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to try to find pathways to help facilitate this balance, including on our college campuses.
Q: Bonus question: Anything else you’d like your constituents to know about your plans for the year?
A: I am focused on the promises I made to my constituents. From weeding out government corruption to protecting our environment and standing with survivors of domestic violence, every bill I introduce and vote I take is a reflection of the conversations I am having with folks in our district — I am fighting to make your voice heard in Washington.
