On Thursday, President Trump directed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to initiate the process of dissolving her agency, a complex task that cannot be achieved without the approval of Congress, consequently paving the way for a significant political and legal confrontation regarding the federal government’s involvement in education.
In the East Room of the White House, surrounded by schoolchildren seated at desks, Mr. Trump signed a long-anticipated executive order aimed at dismantling the department “once and for all.” The administration has cited declining test scores as a crucial rationale for this action.
“We are committed to shutting it down as swiftly as possible,” Mr. Trump stated.
Established through an act of Congress, the department oversees federal college loans, monitors student performance, and supports programs for students with disabilities. Thus, according to Article I of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to shut it down. This clear division of responsibility is a foundational aspect of democracy in the United States, which is why no other modern president has attempted to unilaterally close a federal department.
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump has already implemented substantial changes that have curtailed the agency’s operations and authority. Since his inauguration, his administration has reduced the workforce of the department by over half and cut $600 million in grants, particularly impacting its Office for Civil Rights, which enforces the guarantee of equal educational opportunities for all students.
The executive order issued by Mr. Trump provides seemingly contradictory instructions for Ms. McMahon. While it instructs her to facilitate the agency’s termination, it simultaneously requires her to adhere strictly to federal law, without clarifying how these conflicting directives should be reconciled.
Mr. Trump stated that the department would continue to fulfill essential legal obligations, such as managing federal student aid, including loans and grants, alongside funding for special education and support for districts with high poverty levels. White House officials confirmed that civil rights enforcement would also remain in place.
Describing these programs as “helpful functions,” Mr. Trump said they would be “preserved in full,” although he mentioned that certain duties would be “redistributed to various other agencies and departments that will handle them effectively.”
Higher education leaders and advocacy organizations swiftly condemned the executive order.
“This is political posturing, not genuine public policy,” remarked Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, an organization representing numerous colleges and universities. “Dismantling any cabinet-level federal agency requires congressional approval, and we urge lawmakers to dismiss misleading rhetoric in favor of what serves the best interests of students and their families.”
Legal representatives for the supporters of the Education Department are preparing to challenge Mr. Trump’s order, arguing that the administration has breached the Constitution’s separation of powers and the mandate requiring the president to ensure that federal laws are faithfully executed.
These lawyers, who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations regarding potential litigation, have also explored the possibility of using a Supreme Court decision from June 2024 to block Mr. Trump’s actions. That ruling, rendered 6 to 3 with all the conservative justices in the majority, overturned a long-standing precedent by limiting the executive branch’s interpretation of statutes and reallocating power to Congress and the judiciary.
“See you in court,” declared Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a union representing educators. Her organization is among those planning to file a lawsuit.
While many conservatives back Mr. Trump’s initiative to terminate the agency, congressional Republicans face a challenging dilemma as they balance their desire to cater to Mr. Trump with the preferences of their constituents. Recent public opinion polls have consistently shown that nearly two-thirds of voters oppose shutting down the department.
Although local educational administrations largely dictate how schools operate, the federal department significantly influences academic standards, aids schools in regulatory compliance, and interprets civil rights legislation.
Mr. Trump informed the audience, which included several Republican governors, that the order’s objective was to “return our students to the states.”
“Democrats prefer federal bureaucrats to oversee your child’s education,” stated Representative Jim Jordan, a Republican from Ohio and chair of the House Judiciary Committee, via social media on Thursday. “Republicans aim to give parents the autonomy to do what is best for their children.”
Senator Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who chairs the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, indicated he would propose legislation to abolish the Education Department.
“I concur with President Trump that the Department of Education has failed its mission,” said Mr. Cassidy in a statement. “Given that shutting down the department requires congressional consent, I will assist the president’s objectives by introducing legislation to achieve this as promptly as possible.”
During remarks prior to signing the order, Mr. Trump suggested he might prompt lawmakers to take action on this matter, expressing hope that Democrats would collaborate with Republicans in favor of eliminating the department.
However, the prospects of Democratic support appear slim. In the previous Congress, a quarter of House Republicans opposed a proposal aimed at dismantling the agency.
“I hope they will vote in favor of it,” Mr. Trump remarked, “because ultimately, it may come down to them.”
Mr. Trump’s intentions to dismantle the department have sparked strong backlash from Democrats and education advocacy organizations, who argue that the initiative—despite being largely symbolic—indicates a retreat by the federal government from its responsibilities to protect and serve the most at-risk students.
“To be clear: Prior to federal oversight, millions of children—especially those with disabilities and those from our most vulnerable communities—were deprived of the opportunities they rightfully deserved,” stated Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union.
Representative Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia and ranking member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, has urged his Republican peers to unite with him against the changes outlined in the order.
Mr. Trump is promoting his personal philosophy on education, which, as he previously stated, can be summarized as “I love the poorly educated,” according to Mr. Scott’s comments.
Mr. Trump’s efforts to reform the Education Department surpass those of any prior president in his pursuit to tackle what Republican administrations have long criticized as an excessive bureaucracy. His order further reinforces the argument that stagnant student achievement illustrates the inefficacy of billions spent by the federal government.
“The status quo has evidently failed American children and merely benefited bureaucrats and activists financially,” asserted Nicole Neily, president and founder of Parents Defending Education.
While it is accurate that reading scores for 13-year-olds remain consistent with those of the 1970s and math scores have seen slight improvements, these results reflect substantial declines exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Under the Biden administration, the department faced harsh criticism for being excessively accommodating to teachers’ unions and overreaching in matters such as student loan forgiveness and how civil rights laws were interpreted concerning transgender students.
Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, expressed that both sides of the political spectrum overstate the department’s power; however, he believes the order does little to resolve these issues.
“We’re about to engage in a grand national debate without addressing the practical challenges along the way,” he stated. “We are so focused on lofty discussions that we fail to implement changes that genuinely make life better for educators and parents.”
Sarah Mervosh contributed reporting.
