Importance Score: 78 / 100 🔴
Trump Administration Seeks to Dismantle Department of Education
President Donald Trump has repeatedly discussed eliminating the Department of Education. Recently, he formalized this intention by signing an executive order aimed at initiating the department’s closure. This directive, consistent with numerous pronouncements from the president, has sparked significant debate regarding the scope of his authority over the agency, leaving many uncertain about the administration’s plans and the potential ramifications should they succeed.
Layoffs and Office Closures Signal Department’s “Final Mission”
On March 11, the Trump administration announced plans to lay off approximately 300,000 Department of Education employees, representing about half of its total workforce. Reports also indicated the termination of leases for the department’s regional offices in major cities such as Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, and New York. President Trump has defended these measures as necessary to combat governmental waste and fraud. However, some affected employees, speaking to USA Today, argued that these drastic cuts could ironically exacerbate “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
Historical Context and Recent Developments
The Department of Education’s lineage traces back to the mid-19th century. Its current cabinet-level structure was established in 1979, following Congressional legislation and President Jimmy Carter’s signature, separating it from the former Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Throughout its existence, conservative lawmakers, including President Ronald Reagan, have frequently criticized the department, typically advocating for its reduction in scope rather than complete elimination.
However, this opposition intensified when Trump, during his 2024 campaign, pledged to entirely close the Department of Education. This commitment appeared to advance in early March with the appointment of Linda McMahon, former head of the Small Business Administration, as the new Secretary of Education. McMahon promptly issued a memo to department staff, characterizing their work as executing its “final mission.” While the recent executive order may not finalize the department’s abolition, it is explicitly intended to pave the way for its eventual shutdown.
Feasibility and Potential Consequences Remain Unclear
Considerable uncertainty persists concerning the practicality and potential benefits versus the disruptive consequences of abolishing the Education Department. To understand the current situation, continue reading. For related information, explore the potential impact of recent IRS budget reductions on your tax return.
Department of Education’s Role and Responsibilities
President Trump and his supporters frequently contend that the Department of Education promotes unwelcome ideologies within public schools. This accusation, alongside broader criticisms of federal overreach and alleged misuse of taxpayer funds, is a primary driver behind conservative calls for the department’s dissolution.
In reality, the Education Department lacks direct authority over public school curricula, book selections, or hiring decisions, which are determined at state and local levels. Even the Common Core initiative, a controversial effort to standardize educational content across states to improve college and career readiness, was not a federal Department of Education undertaking.
The Department of Education does manage the allocation of federal Title I funding for students with disabilities or those from low-income backgrounds. It also plays a role in safeguarding students’ civil rights, collecting school data to identify trends, disseminating analysis findings to schools, and administering federal student loans and Pell Grants for higher education. Its influence on school curricula is primarily through advocating for specific reforms or educational practices.
Legal and Political Hurdles to Abolition
Current legal and political consensus suggests that President Trump cannot unilaterally abolish the Department of Education. While he can publicly advocate for its closure, instruct Secretary McMahon to prepare for that eventuality, and reduce its funding, he lacks the authority to shut it down by executive action alone.
Congressional action is required to abolish or establish a federal agency like the Department of Education, a fact acknowledged by Secretary McMahon during her confirmation hearings. Despite Republican majorities in both the House (218-214) and Senate (53-47), they fall short of the 60 Senate votes needed to overcome a filibuster. Support from Democrats or independents for such a plan is highly improbable.
After signing the executive order, President Trump urged Congress to enact legislation to fully dismantle the department. Senator Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, announced plans to introduce such legislation “as soon as possible.” However, this bill faces significant obstacles in the Senate, where Democrats possess sufficient votes to block it via filibuster and are unlikely to support it, particularly after recent funding debates.
Matt Dallek, a political management professor at George Washington University and expert on presidential powers, communicated with FASTNET via email about the challenges facing President Trump and potential, albeit limited, strategies to redistribute the department’s functions without formally abolishing it. Secretary McMahon’s description of recent layoffs, framing them as part of a “commitment to efficiency, accountability, and ensuring that resources are directed where they matter most,” aligns with this approach.
“The primary obstacle to abolishing the Education Department is its likely illegality and unconstitutionality,” Dallek stated. “Under standard interpretations of separation of powers and Congress’s legislative and appropriations roles, a president cannot simply abolish a cabinet agency via executive order. However, the Supreme Court might find a tenuous legal justification to permit it.”
Dallek added, “Another scenario involves gradually reducing the department’s functions and resources, transforming it into a largely inactive entity. Its original purpose would be effectively eliminated, and any remaining functions could be transferred to other federal agencies.”
Potential Consequences of Abolishing the Department
Despite the aforementioned challenges, the Trump administration is expected to persist in its efforts to dismantle the Department of Education. This raises crucial questions about the actual implications of such a move.
Historically, when federal departments have been closed, their responsibilities have been reassigned to other entities. President Trump’s stated intention is ostensibly to devolve the Department of Education’s responsibilities to the state level or potentially to other federal departments.
However, a concrete plan outlining this transition remains absent, generating widespread concern that the department’s crucial functions could simply be eliminated. Therefore, the precise consequences of abolishing the department remain uncertain, mirroring many other policy proposals from the administration.
Critics contend that eliminating the Department of Education would disproportionately disadvantage vulnerable student populations, including those with disabilities, from lower to middle-income families, or from marginalized groups. These groups rely heavily on the programs and protections administered by the department.
Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association labor union, told NBC News, “If realized, Trump’s power grab would deprive our most vulnerable students of vital resources, increase class sizes, dismantle job training programs, make higher education more expensive and inaccessible for middle-class families, eliminate essential special education services for students with disabilities, and undermine student civil rights protections.”
Impact on Federal Student Loans if Department is Abolished
Elaine Rubin, a student loan policy expert and director of communications for Edvisors, a financial aid and scholarship assistance company, previously suggested to FASTNET that the Department of Education’s higher education loan programs could be transferred to the US Treasury, although this process would be time-consuming.
“Some argue that the Treasury Department is the logical place for these programs, given that federal student loans are funded by the Treasury,” Rubin explained. “While lengthy, the transition should be manageable.”
Student loan expert Mark Kantrowitz told FASTNET that such a transition could result in “some chaos” due to the Treasury’s relative inexperience with “higher education rules.” He offered some reassurance, noting that loan terms and interest rates would remain unchanged even under different agency management.
For federal student loan borrowers, some disruption may be anticipated, but it could be among the lesser consequences of dismantling the Department of Education. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated on Thursday that student loan and Pell Grant administration would remain within the Department of Education until Congress officially votes to abolish it.
For further information on student loans, learn how to prepare for the conclusion of the SAVE Act.