On Thursday, President Donald Trump authorized an executive order aimed at “initiating the process to abolish the federal Department of Education.” With this action, he officially commenced a plan to dismantle the 46-year-old agency, asserting it would happen “once and for all.”
However, this order does not lead to an instant closure of the department, as such a move necessitates congressional consent. Instead, the order, as released by the White House, instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary actions to facilitate the dissolution of the Department of Education and shift educational authority back to states and local communities, while ensuring that services, programs, and benefits critical to Americans continue without interruption.”
Stay updated with live political coverage here.
During the signing, Trump remarked that federal Pell Grants (a common type of federal aid for undergraduates), Title I funding, and resources for children with disabilities would be “fully preserved and reallocated to various agencies and departments.”
“Beyond these essential needs, my administration will take all lawful measures to dismantle the department,” he stated, adding that he would do so “as swiftly as possible.”
This initiative is poised to significantly disrupt the essential functions the department fulfills in the wider education system, including managing the federal student loan portfolio, enforcing civil rights in schools, and distributing billions of dollars to assist low-income and disabled students.
Many pressing questions regarding the future of the Department of Education remain unanswered. However, a substantial amount is known about the agency’s history and responsibilities, along with the numerous proposals conservatives have floated over the decades to dismantle it.
What roles does the Department of Education fulfill?
In 1979, Democratic President Jimmy Carter enacted legislation establishing the Department of Education as a Cabinet-level agency, following the existence of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was created during the Eisenhower administration.
For over 40 years, conservatives have sought its elimination — essentially from its inception. President Ronald Reagan, Carter’s successor, pledged to abolish it just a year after it was formed, and this sentiment has echoed among Republicans ever since.
The Education Department is among the smallest Cabinet-level departments, with an appropriation of $268 billion last year, accounting for 4% of the U.S. budget. Recently, McMahon announced a plan to reduce the agency’s workforce by approximately half.
Key responsibilities of the agency include managing a $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio for college and postsecondary students while distributing billions in funding to K-12 schools, benefitting over 50 million students across nearly 100,000 public schools and 32,000 private institutions.
Among this funding, over $15 billion is allocated for Title I schools — institutions that receive federal funding to support low-income families. Additionally, more than $15 billion is directed towards programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring access to free and appropriate public education for students with disabilities.
The Department’s Office for Civil Rights enforces anti-discrimination laws in educational contexts, while the agency’s Institute of Education Sciences oversees data collection, statistics, and research monitoring student outcomes.
That said, the primary authority over education remains with states and local districts, which finance the majority of K-12 education and determine all curriculum choices.
The U.S. Department of Education does not influence curriculum decisions, nor does it set enrollment or graduation requirements. It also has no authority over the selection and usage of books and resources in schools or libraries.
Educational institutions receiving federal funds via Title I and IDEA grant programs must adhere to specific conditions and reporting obligations. Conservatives have long argued that these requirements are overly burdensome and have called for greater flexibility for states to allocate funds as they see fit.
What would the process of winding down the Education Department entail?
Though Trump cannot unilaterally eliminate the Department of Education, McMahon acknowledged during her confirmation hearing that the administration aims to propose a plan that Congress would back. Various plans introduced by Republican House members seek the department’s termination, but with slim Republican majorities in both congressional chambers, such efforts are unlikely to gain traction.
Nevertheless, the administration has alternative strategies to reduce the department’s presence.
Before the signing of the executive order, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt indicated that “critical programs will be safeguarded,” confirming that student loans and federal Pell Grants would remain under the department’s purview. Moreover, a senior administration official noted that Title I funds and assistance for students with disabilities relying on IDEA funding would not be impacted.
However, it remains uncertain how ongoing services will continue without disruption as the department is dismantled.
Education advocates have long cautioned that major reductions could severely impact the federal government’s vast student loan portfolio and Title I and IDEA funding. The potential implications of these cuts on dependent groups are among the most significant concerns following the announcement that the Trump administration intends to dissolve the agency.
One prospect is that the forthcoming educational policy framework may draw from the numerous proposals conservative education activists have circulated over the years regarding the department’s reformation. These proposals largely focus on reallocating vital functions of the department to other federal agencies, although some education experts argue that such transfers would still require congressional approval.
A recent House bill introduced by Rep. David Rouzer, R-N.C., suggests transferring most of the department’s responsibilities to other federal entities. For instance, management of student loan programs would shift to the Treasury Department, while job training initiatives would be reassigned to the Labor Department.
The bill also stipulates that the federal government should be allowed to provide nearly all education funding it currently allocates to states without imposing stringent conditions or reporting requirements.
One plan promoted by the conservative Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in February suggested moving civil rights enforcement responsibilities in public schools to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Education advocates have warned that transferring these responsibilities to the DOJ could result in fewer investigations and weaker enforcement, as it would burden a smaller team with additional duties. Furthermore, the Justice Department has discretion over which cases it chooses to investigate, whereas the Education Department is mandated to investigate discrimination complaints filed within the last 180 days. (Recent staff reductions at the Education Department significantly impacted its Office for Civil Rights.)
Additionally, this proposal recommended converting the federal student loan portfolio into an independent financial entity.
Meanwhile, Project 2025 — which advocates for complete agency abolition — also suggested phasing out Title I funding. The plan advocates ending student debt cancellation programs as well.
Proponents of conservative education policies have argued that most federal funding allocated to states for K-12 programs should be transitioned to block grants, which come with minimal rules and oversight from the federal government.
However, public education advocates caution that such a transition could enable states with conservative leadership to divert funds to private schools, which are exempt from federal education civil rights laws.
Some Republican proposals entail redirecting Title I funding for underprivileged schools, allowing economically disadvantaged students to utilize that funding at private schools of their choice.
In February, a group of leading education officials from GOP-controlled states presented McMahon with a request to distribute federal school funding as block grants. These Republicans expressed a desire for flexibility to redirect funding into “state-driven initiatives” and “alternative spending strategies,” appealing to McMahon for waivers regarding specific federal requirements tied to their funding. It is worth noting that red states often depend more significantly on federal education funding than their blue counterparts.
Private schools lacking federal financial support are not bound by civil rights regulations, which include prohibitions against discrimination based on race, gender, or disability. Furthermore, private schools are not required to create individualized education plans for students with learning disabilities. It remains uncertain whether any federal civil rights protections previously overseen by the Department of Education would extend if states begin using federal funds to support private K-12 institutions under their proposed block grant arrangements.
