In a significant move, President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, fulfilling a campaign promise to reduce federal engagement in education – an endeavor that is unlikely to proceed fully without congressional endorsement, given the department’s foundation in legislation from 1979. The plan has long been a goal for many conservatives who criticize the department for inefficiency and perceived liberal biases.
According to the executive order, the Education Secretary is tasked with undertaking all lawful measures to close the Department and shift educational authority back to state and local governance, although details on the execution of these directives remain sparse. The White House has assured that essential functions of the agency will persist, even as the department’s responsibilities are scaled back.
Trump’s order allows certain functions, such as Title I funding for schools serving low-income communities, Pell grants, and financial support for students with disabilities, to remain intact. Despite earlier indications that federal student loans would remain under department purview, the order suggests otherwise, exposing an inconsistency by indicating the Department lacks adequate resources to handle its vast loan portfolio, advocating for reassigning these functions elsewhere.
During the signing, Trump criticized the Education Department for the nation’s declining academic performance, asserting that states are more capable of managing educational quality. His administration has already initiated efforts to reduce department personnel significantly and implement substantial cuts in areas such as the Office for Civil Rights.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon expressed a commitment to simplify processes and empower states to make educational decisions, while promising to maintain crucial services and coordinate with states and Congress on a seamless transition. She also highlighted ongoing discussions about reallocating certain department roles to other federal entities, such as moving civil rights responsibilities under the Department of Justice’s existing framework.
The decision has been warmly received by advocacy groups pushing for reduced federal involvement in education, arguing that the department has languished under ideological bias while student outcomes have suffered. However, critics, including public school advocates, fear that eliminating the department could exacerbate educational inequities, particularly for vulnerable students reliant on federal support.
The initiative has already sparked preparation for legal contests by organizations like Democracy Forward and has been condemned by Democratic leaders who view it as a power grab threatening educational equity. Some in the Republican camp, including former officials like Margaret Spellings, have questioned the feasibility and impact of dismantling the department, particularly regarding ongoing federal responsibilities and the potential disruption to student achievement.
Presently, much of the department’s work centers around financial oversight, including managing a substantial student loan portfolio and administering various aid programs. Nevertheless, the survival of other department roles, such as technical education support and assistance programs, remains uncertain under this new directive.
The proposed shift has revived debates over the allocation of federal education funding, largely through “block grants,” which critics argue could endanger crucial funding streams like Title I. While the department’s contributions to school budgets is relatively modest at 14%, it plays a vital role in supporting programs targeting vulnerable student populations.
Throughout his presidency, Trump had vocalized ambitions to redirect educational control entirely back to state jurisdictions, framing the Education Department as an overreaching entity rife with radical influences. Yet, even amid moves to dismantle the department, Trump has utilized its authority to advance specific policy goals.
Despite strong backing among conservative circles, the proposal faces skepticism from various quarters, including some of Trump’s political allies, given that closing the department without congressional approval raises concerns about legality and political viability. A prior attempt to abolish the department in Congress was notably met with resistance, demonstrating a bipartisan reluctance to endorse the measure.