Donald Trump’s relationship with the media has always been a spectacle—loud, antagonistic, and unapologetically aggressive. But beneath the chaos lies a deeper, more calculated strategy. What appears as spontaneous outrage or off-the-cuff belligerence is often carefully designed to serve a broader purpose: manipulating public discourse to normalize extremist policies. This tactic isn’t new to authoritarian playbooks, but Trump has modernized and Americanized it—using the reach of social media, friendly news outlets, and right-wing influencers to spread and reinforce his message. His ultimate goal? To shift the parameters of what is politically possible, especially in institutions like public education that have long been bastions of democratic (small d) ideals.
Trump’s verbal assaults and policy proposals often begin with an outrageous statement—something designed to provoke a strong reaction from the public and the press. This isn’t accidental; it’s a deliberate use of shock to dominate the media cycle and draw attention to issues he wants to reframe. In doing so, he leverages the “Overton Window,” a political concept that explains how public perception of what is acceptable can be moved over time. In Trump’s case, the initial shock is often so severe that any following proposal—no matter how harmful—appears comparatively moderate. It’s a psychological tactic pulled straight from the world of sales and influence, and it’s highly effective.
Nowhere is this more evident than in education policy. From threats to abolish the Department of Education to demands for “patriotic education,” Trump has set out to fundamentally reshape what schooling in America means and who it serves. He uses education as a cultural and political wedge—linking it to national identity, religious values, and fear of ideological “others.” In doing so, he mobilizes his base, demonizes dissent, and redefines the role of public education from a space of inquiry and inclusion to one of conformity and control. It’s not just a policy platform; it’s an ideological crusade.
Even when these proposals don’t immediately succeed legislatively, they still achieve a secondary—and arguably more dangerous—goal: shifting the public conversation. By constantly pressing extreme views into the mainstream, Trump drags the political center toward his ideological edge. Conversations that once focused on increasing funding for schools now revolve around banning books and gutting DEI programs. Debates over college affordability are replaced by accusations of Marxist indoctrination in universities. And while educators and advocates are busy defending against the latest outrage, the broader infrastructure of public education is quietly eroded.
Understanding Trump’s rhetorical and policy strategies is essential not just for political observers, but for educators, parents, students, and advocates who are fighting to protect democratic learning spaces. This is not simply about Trump the individual—it’s about a model of governance and media manipulation that could define the future of American education if left unchallenged. In this post, l will explore how Trump is using the Overton Window, sales-based persuasion techniques, and media manipulation to reshape education policy—and what that means for the struggle for equity and truth in America’s schools.
Shifting the Overton Window in Education
The Overton Window is a political framework that describes the range of policies politically acceptable to the mainstream population at a given time. By normalizing radical concepts, he paves the way for significant policy shifts that align with his ideological goals. Trump’s executive orders to abolish the US Department of Education and to return education control to states exemplifies this tactic. By framing federal oversight as bureaucratic overreach, he positions state control as a more reasonable alternative, even if it leads to inconsistent educational standards and worsened achievement nationwide. This approach resonates with constituents who favor “local” governance, further shifting the Overton Window toward decentralization.
Additionally, Trump’s emphasis on “patriotic education” and criticism of curricula that include discussions on race and gender aim to redefine acceptable educational content. By labeling certain topics as “radical” or “anti-American,” he influences public perception, making the exclusion of these subjects seem more acceptable. This strategy effectively narrows the scope of educational discourse, aligning it with his values.
The proposal of the “American Academy,” a new national online university (likely for-profit), further demonstrates this shift. By offering an alternative to traditional higher education institutions, which he criticizes for promoting “leftist ideologies,” Trump introduces a new model that aligns with his vision. This initiative challenges the existing educational framework, pushing the Overton Window toward alternative forms of education.
Through these actions, Trump effectively redefines the boundaries of acceptable educational policy, making room for significant changes that reflect his administration’s priorities.
Employing the “Door-in-the-Face” Sales Technique
The “door-in-the-face” technique is a persuasion strategy where an initial large request is made, expecting rejection, followed by a smaller, more reasonable request. Trump employs this tactic in education policy by proposing extreme measures to make other significant but less drastic changes more palatable. This approach manipulates public perception, making substantial policy shifts seem moderate in comparison.
For instance, after suggesting the complete dismantling of the Department of Education, proposals like reducing its funding or limiting its scope appear more acceptable. This strategy allows for significant policy changes under the guise of compromise, advancing his administration’s objectives while mitigating public resistance.
Similarly, by threatening to withhold federal funding from schools that include certain curricula, Trump sets a high-stakes precedent. When schools adjust their programs to avoid losing funding, it appears as a voluntary change, though it results from coercive tactics. This method effectively enforces policy changes without legislative mandates.
The introduction of the “American Academy” also follows this pattern. By proposing a new federal institution to counter traditional universities, Trump presents a solution to a problem he has amplified. This creates a narrative where the new institution is a necessary alternative, making its implementation more acceptable.
Through these strategies, Trump advances his educational agenda by manipulating public perception, making significant policy shifts appear as reasonable compromises.
Media Manipulation and a No-Trophys Policy
Trump’s no-Trophys policy reflects his refusal to concede to media pressure or admit mistakes, viewing such actions as signs of weakness (e.g. Mr. Abrego imprisoned in El Salvador). Instead, he doubles down on controversial positions. He undermines checks on power by requiring administration officials (e.g. Justice Department) to lie about the situation and fosters relationships with MAGA-friendly media outlets and influencers to bypass traditional accountability channels.
This approach extends to education policy, where Trump uses media to frame his initiatives positively while discrediting opposing viewpoints. By controlling the narrative, he minimizes public scrutiny and resistance to his policies. This strategy allows for the implementation of significant changes with limited public debate.
For example, when facing criticism over proposed cuts to educational programs, Trump and his allies often dismiss the concerns as “radical left” partisan attacks, shifting focus away from the policy implications. This tactic reduces accountability and allows controversial policies to proceed with minimal opposition.
Additionally, by labeling dissenting educators and institutions as part of a “radical left,” Trump delegitimizes their critiques, framing them as ideologically driven rather than student-success driven. This narrative undermines the credibility of opposition voices, further consolidating support for his policies.
Through media manipulation and a no-Trophy policy, Trump effectively controls the discourse around education policy, facilitating the advancement of his agenda with reduced resistance.
Conclusion: Trump’s Strategy and the Future of Education
Donald Trump’s approach to the press and public communication is far more methodical than it may initially appear. While his rhetoric often seems impulsive or inflammatory, it is, in fact, deeply rooted in a political and sales strategy designed to shape public opinion and normalize once-fringe disruptive ideas. These tactics—shifting the Overton Window, using techniques like the door-in-the-face strategy, and enforcing a no-concessions posture with the media—aren’t just about gaining headlines. They are tools of political engineering, used to dismantle long-standing institutions and replace them with ideologically aligned alternatives. In the education sector, this means threatening the very foundations of democratic learning spaces and shared academic governance.
Through these calculated techniques, Trump has worked to redefine what’s “reasonable” in education policy. A decade ago, calls to eliminate the Department of Education or defund entire university systems would have been politically suicidal. Today, such rhetoric dominates conservative platforms, with real legislative and executive action behind it. From “patriotic education” to anti-DEI crackdowns, Trump has effectively seeded the ground for policies that once would have been deemed unthinkable. These shifts represent more than a rhetorical turn—they signal an ideological war on public education and academic freedom, with long-term consequences for students, educators, and communities alike.
Importantly, Trump’s tactics also discourage traditional forms of democratic resistance. By flooding the media with extreme proposals, pivoting to “compromises,” and labeling opposition as radical or un-American, he overwhelms public discourse. Institutions struggle to respond in a unified way. Faculty senates, school boards, and accrediting bodies are left flat-footed, trying to address one controversy while the next is already dominating the news cycle. This is not accidental—it’s a blitzkrieg strategy of distraction and division, meant to erode the public’s trust in educational institutions while consolidating control over what can be taught and who gets to teach it.
The implications for educational equity are profound. Communities of color, LGBTQ+ students, immigrant families, and other marginalized groups often bear the brunt of these attacks. By weaponizing concepts like “colorblindness,” “viewpoint diversity,” and “American values,” Trump’s movement strips away efforts to make education inclusive and socially responsive. The rollback of DEI efforts, attacks on ethnic studies, and pressure on universities to police student activism reflect a deliberate effort to reassert a narrow vision of American identity—one that excludes rather than includes. This is not just a policy debate; it’s a struggle over the soul and purpose of public education in a diverse democracy.
If educators, advocates, and communities hope to resist this coordinated assault, they must understand the playbook. Trump’s media and political strategy is not about accuracy or fairness—it’s about shifting norms and forcing compliance through spectacle and fear. The response must be just as strategic. We must name these tactics, organize across sectors, and reassert the public purpose of education: to build critical thinkers, not compliant subjects; to serve the many, not the few; and to tell the full story of America, not a sanitized version. In this battle for education, silence is surrender. Courage and political savvy must drive our action.
Cloaking Inequity 
You must be logged in to post a comment.