UJ
—
President Donald Trump initiated the process of dismantling the Department of Education by signing an executive order on Thursday.
This action is intended to honor a long-held campaign commitment and transfer more educational authority to state governments. Although the president lacks the power to completely eliminate the agency without Congressional consent, the department announced earlier this month that nearly half of its employees would depart through layoffs and voluntary buyouts.
The fate of the agency’s programs and functions remains uncertain, and legal challenges to Trump’s executive order are anticipated.
According to a senior administration official, federal funding for students with disabilities—who are protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act—as well as Title I funding for low-income schools and federal student loan payments, will not be impacted by the order. However, the order prohibits any programs or activities receiving agency funds from promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion or gender ideology.
Supporters of the order argue that the oversight of education should revert to states and parents, while opponents contend that this move will adversely affect children and their educational outcomes.
Here is what to understand about the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the Department of Education:
Low-income, rural, and disabled students may be affected
The Department of Education allocates tens of billions of dollars to support millions of students in low-income and rural communities, as well as those with disabilities, and advocates express concern over the implications of the agency’s potential closure for these groups.
The agency provides over $18 billion in additional funding each year to local school districts for extra academic support in areas with high poverty levels. Title I grants benefit approximately 26 million low-income students.
The department’s dismantling, along with laying off a significant number of staff, raises concerns about whether states and districts will use federal funds effectively to achieve positive results for students, noted Weade James, senior director for K-12 education policy at the Center for American Progress. For example, she questioned if states will continue to monitor student progress.
Additionally, rural and smaller school districts depend on the Department of Education for technical support and the implementation of Title I grants and other programs, she pointed out.
“It is crucial that we keep questioning how these cuts will affect students because undoubtedly they will,” James emphasized. “There will be a loss of expertise and a reduction in data collection, oversight, and accountability.”
The Department of Education also establishes guidelines for services and accommodations for disabled students, ensuring their right to a free and appropriate public education. The agency provides funding for schools for the deaf and blind in the U.S. and oversees the Rehabilitation Services Administration, which assists individuals with disabilities in living independently and finding employment. Each year, the department allocates over $15 billion to support 7.4 million students under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The future of these functions is uncertain, but Project 2025—a comprehensive plan for overhauling the federal government, developed by several individuals associated with Trump—suggested transferring these roles to the Department of Health and Human Services, which lacks familiarity with the programs, said Mia Ives-Rublee, senior director for the Disability Justice Initiative at the Center for American Progress. This could create significant challenges for students with disabilities seeking necessary services, she noted.
“What we do know is that we are going to witness a significant change in how we provide—or fail to provide—services to disabled students,” she commented.
Uncertainties surrounding the management of federal student loans
The Department of Education has been grappling to find an alternative agency capable of managing its extensive student debt portfolio, according to two sources involved in the discussions. The portfolio encompasses a staggering $1.8 trillion in loans, with about 40% of those loans currently past due, a figure that has risen from earlier estimates reported by UJ based on publicly accessible information.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declared prior to the signing of the executive order on Thursday that certain “critical functions,” including student loans and the administration of grants to at-risk students, would remain with the Department of Education; however, Trump later stated that these responsibilities would be reassigned to other agencies.
This inconsistency may pose challenges for Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who is mandated by law to fulfill certain congressionally assigned duties, including managing loans and providing grants for schools in economically disadvantaged areas.
The president previously suggested that the loan portfolio—larger than that of all but three U.S. banks—might be transferred to the Treasury Department or the Small Business Administration, yet no definitive plans regarding this have emerged.
“The Treasury department is not interested,” stated one source involved in the discussions, who also mentioned that discussions regarding transferring the portfolio to the Small Business Administration have not progressed.
The Department of Education does not possess authority over school curricula.
In establishing the Department of Education, Congress asserted:
“No part of a program administered by the Secretary or any other officer of the Department shall be interpreted to permit the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, instructional programs, administration, or personnel of any educational organization, school, or school system, any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other educational materials by any educational organization or school system, except as authorized by law.”
The responsibility for curriculum lies with states and localities, meaning the executive order would not directly impact students’ educational content.
Through a mix of layoffs and voluntary buyouts, the Department of Education announced intentions to nearly cut its workforce in half since Trump assumed office.
The Office for Civil Rights, responsible for safeguarding students by ensuring educational institutions receiving federal funds work against antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, and discrimination against students with disabilities, has been hit particularly hard by the job reductions.
The Trump administration is closing seven of the office’s twelve regional offices and laying off nearly half its personnel.
The future of the office remains uncertain. However, employees within the office have expressed deep concerns about their capacity to effectively manage claims with a reduced staff.
“This will significantly impede our ability to accept, assess, and investigate the majority of the cases,” remarked one OCR employee, who chose to remain anonymous for fear of repercussions.
Contributions from UJ’s Jeff Zeleny aided in the development of this report.
