The Trump administration has proposed shutting down the Department of Education, suggesting that its major responsibilities could be redistributed to other federal agencies. Duties like civil rights enforcement might move to the Justice Department, while student loans could be handled by the Treasury or Commerce departments, and oversight on student disability rights might be transferred to Health and Human Services. Nevertheless, the future of promoting equal access in the inherently unequal American education system remains uncertain.
President Trump recently signed an executive order aiming to eradicate the department altogether. In the preceding weeks, efforts have already been made to restructure it by significantly reducing its workforce, which Trump has labeled unnecessary and ideologically skewed. With the department dismantled, advocates express concern that the federal government would lack a central authority to advocate for marginalized students, such as economically disadvantaged individuals, English learners, those with disabilities, and racial or ethnic minorities.
Weadé James from the Center for American Progress voiced apprehension, stressing that disbanding the department will likely lead to a disadvantaged group of students lacking equitable educational opportunities. The creation of the Department of Education in 1979 was partially inspired by the anti-poverty and civil rights movements of previous decades. One of its primary missions was to fortify the federal commitment to equitable educational access for all individuals.
Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, believes that eliminating or significantly reducing the department could diminish its role as a driving voice for education reform and solutions. However, he questions whether such changes will have a noticeable effect in practice. Despite efforts, recent national test scores reveal substantial academic struggles, particularly a significant percentage of eighth-graders lacking foundational reading skills. Advocates like Petrilli assert that the focus should be on supporting rigorous education standards and accountability.
Wil Del Pilar from EdTrust highlights that the department, albeit flawed, has provided a guiding focus for advancing educational equity. The department is tasked with implementing protections and investments to support equitable educational outcomes. Trump’s proposal to return control of schools entirely to the states raises major concerns about the management of substantial federal funds that support public education, especially in impoverished areas through Title I funding.
Providing education to low-income children, English learners, and students with disabilities often incurs higher costs due to necessary specialized teaching and smaller class sizes. This has been recognized by Congress, which has authorized additional financial support. However, McMahon’s proposal to send money directly to states with fewer constraints sparks fears of escalating inequalities, as states may redirect funds based on local political agendas rather than educational equity.
The potential switch to state block grants could lead to significant disparities, especially in states that heavily rely on federal education aid. States like Mississippi, South Dakota, Arkansas, Montana, and Alaska, which depend on federal assistance for at least a fifth of their educational funding, could face severe impacts if oversight or rules change.
Traditionally, the Education Department, through its Office for Civil Rights, has advocated for disadvantaged students, with a focus on defending the rights of those with disabilities and victims of racial harassment. Under the Trump administration, priorities have shifted toward addressing antisemitism. Some legal advocates remain concerned over these changes, although frustrations with the department’s slow response rates and understaffing precede Trump’s tenure.
The administration’s recent termination of the Equity Assistance Center-South contract, part of a wider crackdown on diversity and inclusion initiatives, has drawn criticism. This decision impacts Southern districts still under federal desegregation orders. Raymond Pierce of the Southern Education Foundation has criticized this move, arguing that it shirks governmental responsibility to rectify educational disparities and enhance opportunities.