Closing the Department of Education? A Critical Analysis of Trump’s Executive Order

by Mandy Morgan March 21, 2025

The U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C. President Jimmy Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act into law on October 17, 1979, officially elevating education to a Cabinet-level department​. The new Department began operations in 1980 with around 3,000 employees and a $12 billion budget, tasked with administering federal aid, collecting data on schools, and enforcing education laws on privacy and civil rights​. Notably, the federal department does not set curricula or local school standards – those decisions remain with states and local districts​. Instead, its mission was to “ensure access to equal educational opportunity” and to coordinate federal support for education across the country​,

From its inception, the Department of Education faced political headwinds. In the 1980 presidential race, Ronald Reagan argued the new department was an unnecessary Washington intrusion – he deemed it “not needed” and promised to abolish it, viewing education as “the principal responsibility” of local and state authorities​. After Reagan’s victory, his administration did cut the department’s funding but never mustered the congressional support to dismantle it entirely​. Conservative calls to eliminate the Department have echoed ever since. For decades, Republican platforms and lawmakers have periodically proposed shutting it down as a symbol of federal overreach in schooling.​

These efforts always stalled in Congress, but the idea never fully disappeared from political rhetoric. Now, over forty years later, former President Donald Trump is reviving this longstanding goal – going so far as drafting an executive order calling for the Department’s closure and the return of all educational authority to the states.​

What Does the Department of Education Do?

To understand the stakes, it’s important to know what functions the U.S. Department of Education currently serves and what might happen to them if they were eliminated or handed off to states. The federal department’s role, while limited in scope compared to state and local education agencies, is focused on supporting certain critical needs nationwide. Here are some of its key functions:

Funding for Low-Income Schools (Title I)

Through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Department sends about $16–18 billion each year to high-poverty school districts to bolster education for low-income students​. This aid can represent a substantial share of under-resourced districts’ budgets.

For example, Title I and related programs make up roughly 11% of all K-12 education funding nationwide​ , and in some states with many low-income communities, the federal share is even higher. If the Department of Education is eliminated, these funds and programs would not automatically continue unless states shouldered the cost. A conservative policy blueprint has suggested phasing out Title I over 10 years and simply giving states lump-sum “block grants” instead​. Education experts warn that removing targeted federal funds would leave vulnerable students in poor areas at risk, as states might not replace the full $18 billion or might distribute it unevenly.

Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws

The Department of Education, through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), is charged with enforcing federal civil rights protections in schools and colleges. This includes Title IX gender equity (such as ensuring girls and boys have equal opportunities and addressing sexual harassment), Title VI racial nondiscrimination, disability rights under Section 504 and the ADA, and other anti-discrimination laws. In 2022, the Department received the highest number of civil rights complaints in its history – over 18,000 allegations of discrimination in a single year​. OCR investigates these complaints and can require schools to remedy violations or risk losing federal funds. For instance, it has enforced rights of students with disabilities to receive accommodations and of transgender students to learn free from harassment.

​If the federal department is dissolved, who ensures schools honor these rights? While the laws (like Title IX) would remain on the books, the dedicated federal enforcement arm could vanish. Oversight might fall solely to states or to an overburdened Justice Department, raising fears that civil rights violations could go unchecked – especially in places where state leaders may be less inclined to intervene. Parents and students now rely on federal authorities to address injustices that local officials fail to resolve; in 2022, OCR resolved over 16,000 cases ranging from racial bullying to denial of special education services, Without that watchdog, vulnerable groups – minorities, students with disabilities, LGBTQ+ youth – could lose a critical avenue for justice and protection.

Special Education Services (IDEA)

The Department administers the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees that children with disabilities receive a “free appropriate public education” tailored to their needs. The federal government provides funding to states (roughly $13 billion in recent years) to support special education, in exchange for states meeting strict requirements on identifying and serving students with disabilities. The Department’s role includes monitoring state compliance and distributing grants for services like speech therapy, classroom aides, and specialized instructional materials.

If these responsibilities are handed entirely to states, there is a real worry about consistency and adequacy of services. States vary widely in their resources and commitment to special education – many already struggle to fully fund IDEA’s mandates. Without federal oversight, states facing budget pressures might scale back programs for students with disabilities or tighten eligibility to cut costs. Parents today can invoke federal law if a school fails to provide required services. Still, in a no-DOE scenario, families might be left to battle it out in state courts or legislatures, jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The loss of federal support could also worsen inequities; wealthier states or districts might maintain robust special ed programs, while poorer areas fall further behind. For parents of children with special needs, this uncertainty is alarming – it threatens hard-won guarantees that their kids will not be left out or left behind in school.

Student Loans and College Aid

One of the Department’s largest roles (by budget) is overseeing federal student financial aid for higher education. This includes managing Pell Grants for low-income college students and administering federal student loans used by millions of Americans to finance college. The Office of Federal Student Aid within the department handles loan servicing, sets rules for lenders and colleges, and enforces student loan forgiveness or repayment programs.

Eliminating the Department would throw this entire system into question. The federal student aid apparatus could be moved to another agency or dismantled; in his proposal, Trump suggests “sending all education…work back to the states”​ which implies states might even take over student aid.

It’s unclear how a patchwork of 50 state-run loan programs could replace a unified federal system. There’s a risk of major disruption for current and future college students: would Pell Grants continue, or would states decide whether to offer their scholarships instead? Would existing student loans be transferred to private banks or forgiven, or would borrowers be subject to new terms? These unknowns make college counselors and families nervous. Critics note that dismantling federal student aid could reduce college access for lower-income students – many states, already strained to fund K-12 and public universities, might not be able (or willing) to match the billions in Pell Grants that currently help students nationwide. At best, the transition would be chaotic; at worst, it could put higher education out of reach for many and saddle others with even more expensive private debt.

Educational Standards and Data

Although curriculum decisions are local, the Department of Education does influence nationwide education quality through research, data, and certain requirements. It runs the National Center for Education Statistics, which collects data on everything from test scores to graduation rates, and it administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), known as the Nation’s Report Card. These data help benchmark student progress across states. The Department also implements federal education laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which requires states to test students in reading and math and to report results by student subgroup. Such federal policies aim to ensure transparency and accountability, prompting states to address achievement gaps.

If the Department is scrapped, consistent national data and standards could suffer. States might choose not to continue rigorous testing or might define proficiency very differently, making it hard to compare or maintain high expectations. A Heritage Foundation plan (embraced by Trump’s advisors) in fact envisions a shrunken federal role limited to just “a statistics-gathering agency” for education​. Even that minimal role would depend on political will. Educators worry that without a federal push for excellence and equity, some states might lower their standards to save money or avoid accountability. The result could be a widening chasm in educational quality – with students’ opportunities increasingly determined by where they live, rather than a national commitment to every child’s education.

Trump’s Executive Order: Ideology vs. Reality

Donald Trump’s recent executive order calling for the closure of the Department of Education is steeped in ideological claims that deserve careful scrutiny. At rallies, Trump has argued that “federal oversight” has failed American students and that eliminating the department would improve education by “moving everything back to the states where it belongs.”​

This rhetoric taps into a popular conservative narrative that local control is inherently better and that Washington bureaucrats only meddle and waste money. American education indeed faces serious challenges – test score gains have been sluggish despite decades of federal programs. For instance, U.S. per-pupil spending has more than doubled (inflation-adjusted) since the 1970s, yet test scores have inched up only marginally.​

Federal involvement has not erased achievement gaps or lifted the U.S. to the top of international education rankings. But does that mean federal oversight “failed” – or that schools need more support? Trump’s claim reflects a partisan conclusion (that Washington is the problem) rather than a nuanced analysis. Education experts note that many factors influence student outcomes – including poverty, state funding levels, and local curricula – and it’s not evident that America’s educational woes stem from the existence of the Department of Education. In fact, some improvements (like rising graduation rates and narrowed gaps in the 2000s) coincided with periods of active federal initiatives.​

The idea that simply abolishing a federal agency will spur a renaissance in learning is, at best, an unproven hypothesis – at worst, a political talking point that ignores the real complexities of education reform.

Another contentious assertion in Trump’s agenda is that federal efforts around diversity and inclusion have undermined education quality or even discriminated against other groups. The executive order and related policy proposals frame programs related to equity, diversity, and LGBTQ+ inclusion as ideological “woke” excesses that should be rolled back. For example, Trump’s platform (and the Heritage Project 2025 plan) calls for eliminating initiatives on “critical race theory” and “gender ideology” in schools​

This includes barring things like optional diversity trainings or discouraging any policies that recognize transgender students’ identities. The order labels such efforts as politically driven and implies that focusing on diversity is a distraction or even reverse discrimination. It’s important to separate fact from rhetoric here. Programs aimed at diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education typically involve training teachers to be culturally responsive, ensuring curriculum materials reflect all students’ histories, and protecting students from harassment or bias. There is no reliable evidence that these efforts harm any group of students; on the contrary, they seek to create a safer and more supportive learning environment for historically marginalized children. Calling them “discriminatory” is a political stance – often based on anecdotes or philosophical disagreements – rather than a factual assessment. Many parents and educators of color, for instance, have fought hard for inclusive curricula and anti-bullying protections precisely because old policies ignored their children’s needs. By demonizing DEI, the executive order appeals to those who believe schools have become too “politically correct,” but it ignores why those inclusion policies existed: to address very real disparities and prejudices that affect students’ ability to learn. In a critical view, this aspect of Trump’s proposal seems less about improving academic outcomes and more about a culture war agenda – removing teachings and programs that some conservatives oppose on ideological grounds.

Trump’s desire to eliminate the Department of Education aligns with a longstanding goal among conservatives to reduce the federal government’s role in education. This position resonates with many people frustrated by federal mandates, such as standardized testing, the Common Core initiative (which is state-led but often mistakenly attributed to the federal government), and school closures during the pandemic. It also connects with the “parents’ rights” movement, which asserts that decisions about curriculum—particularly those related to race, history, sex education, and similar topics—should be made by parents and local school boards without federal interference.

By portraying the Department of Education as an enforcer of liberal policies—such as diversity initiatives or protections for transgender students—Trump is tapping into parents’ concerns about losing control over their children’s education. However, this approach has unintended consequences that his executive order does not fully address. While removing federal oversight might allow some school districts to ban certain books or exclude specific topics, it would also eliminate federal protections that many parents depend on.

For example, a parent of a child with autism relies on federal laws to ensure that her son receives an individualized education plan. Similarly, parents in communities of color depend on federal monitoring to ensure their school district addresses racial disparities. In other words, while local authorities may gain the “freedom” to make decisions, this can result in a loss of freedom for families who need a higher authority to hold their local schools accountable.

It’s also crucial to note the practical reality: a U.S. president cannot erase a Cabinet department with the stroke of a pen alone. An act of Congress created the Department of Education, and only Congress can formally abolish it.​

Trump’s executive order can declare the administration’s intent to disband the agency. It can direct steps to weaken or downsize it, but at the end of the day, legislation would be required to fully shut its doors. This means political hurdles – a supermajority in the Senate, as legal experts point out, which is extremely unlikely in a closely divided government.​

In the past, even Republican-controlled Congresses balked at eliminating popular programs under the Department. For example, when a bill in 2023 proposed to abolish the Department and block-grant its funding to states, it failed to advance.​

Recognizing this, Trump’s team (via the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025) has outlined alternative strategies: dramatically shrink the agency and “neuter” its authority if it can’t be completely abolished​. Sec. McMahon’s goal is essentially to dismantle programs from within, slash the staff, and refuse to enforce federal regulations. Such tactics might achieve much of the executive order’s intent even without Congress – which is why education professionals are taking the proposal seriously. In short, while the order’s bold claims are ideological, the threat to the Department’s functions is very real, and the debate isn’t just theoretical for those who depend on those functions.

Implications for States, Schools, and Families

What would it mean on the ground if the Department of Education were shut down or rendered impotent? State and local school systems, parents, and educators would feel the effects immediately. The federal department currently provides a backbone of funding, guidance, and legal protection that states have built into their educational systems. Removing it overnight (or even over a short time) could create chaos for school districts and uncertainty for families.

First and foremost is the question of funding. Federal dollars, while a minority of overall school funding, are heavily concentrated on vulnerable groups and poor communities. Federal education aid isn’t spread evenly – it’s targeted where the need is greatest. If that support evaporates, some states could likely manage, but others would face hard choices. States vary widely in their capacity and willingness to fund education. Many low-income states rely disproportionately on federal aid to supplement their own limited tax revenues. For instance, Alaska’s K-12 schools receive over $4,300 per student in federal funding (the highest in the nation), whereas a state like Utah gets about $1,300 per student​. In Mississippi, roughly 20% of K-12 education funding comes from federal programs, compared to less than 5% in wealthier states like New Jersey.​

If Washington stops sending that money, states with the weakest tax bases or the highest poverty rates would be hit the hardest. They would either have to raise taxes, reallocate funds from other services, or – more likely – cut education programs. Parents in an affluent suburb might barely notice the loss of federal funds. Still, parents in a rural district or inner-city neighborhood could see class sizes swell, reading specialists or counselors laid off, and school building improvements put on indefinite hold. One tangible example is that many rural districts receive federal aid for hiring teachers and technology via Title II and other grants. Without it, those districts might be unable to maintain staff in critical areas like math and science. The bottom line is that pulling federal funds risks widening the gap between “have” and “have-not” schools. States that value education could try to compensate, but poorer states may simply lack the means. And historically, when states face budget shortfalls, education often suffers despite the best intentions.

Federal vs. State/Local Funding

The federal government contributes a minority share of overall school funding (about 11% nationwide) compared to state and local sources​. However, this contribution is targeted to critical needs – such as high-poverty schools, special education, and school meal programs – and in some districts, it makes up a substantial portion of the budget. If those federal funds disappear or are converted to no-strings-attached block grants, many educators worry that dollars will not reach the students who need them most. Resource gaps between wealthy and poor communities would likely widen, undermining the principle that every child deserves a quality education no matter where they live. States could find themselves competing for limited funds or prioritizing politically popular expenses over equitable funding. In short, the loss of federal aid could introduce a new era of fiscal inequality in education, where a child’s opportunities are even more tightly tied to their ZIP code.

One major implication of eliminating the federal Department of Education is the potential loss of consistency in educational standards and the enforcement of quality. The federal Department of Education has historically pushed for a baseline of standards across all states, such as requiring them to assess student learning in core subjects and to intervene in their lowest-performing schools. While some states resist these mandates, they also provide parents with a reliable measure: a test score in Ohio should correspond to a similar score in Montana under these federal testing requirements.

Without a federal overseer, states would be free to set their own standards entirely. In theory, this could encourage innovation, as supporters of this approach suggest that states could customize education to better fit local preferences. However, it also raises the risk of a “race to the bottom.” If a state decides to cut costs by lowering its standards—such as by testing less or reducing proficiency cut-offs—it might obscure underperformance while depriving students of a robust education.

There is precedent for this concern: in the early 2000s, prior to the establishment of uniform national testing standards, some states inflated their test results, giving parents a misleading sense of student achievement. Strong federal involvement under laws like No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has encouraged states to adopt higher standards and to report achievement transparently by subgroup. Removing that federal role could lead to inconsistent and uneven standards once again.

For parents, this inconsistency may mean that an “A” or a diploma in one state does not equate to the same level of learning as it does in another. Military families and others who move frequently are especially concerned about this issue—if each state establishes its own standards, their children might encounter very different curricula and expectations. Additionally, colleges and employers could find it more challenging to evaluate applicants if high school credentials vary widely across states. In short, eliminating the Department of Education could undermine decades of progress toward a more accountable and comparable education system nationwide.

Teachers and school administrators are expressing concern about the implications of losing the Department of Education. Educators often depend on federal guidelines and support to uphold certain standards, especially when local politics become contentious. For instance, if a local school board decides to deny climate science or censor historical facts, the current federal education guidelines and college readiness standards provide a counterbalance, offering educators a justification to maintain sound curricula.

If “local control” becomes absolute, teachers could find themselves at the mercy of political shifts and ideological pressures in each state, with little recourse. This could lead to a fragmented education system, where some approaches are rigorous and evidence-based while others are influenced by political or religious agendas. For teachers, this lack of uniformity could result in professional isolation—a teacher in one state might no longer have access to nationally developed best practices or federally funded professional development programs that have enhanced instruction in areas such as STEM or special education.

Additionally, the issue of funding and support for teachers is a concern. The federal Teacher Loan Forgiveness program, which encourages educators to work in high-need schools by forgiving part of their student loans, would likely disappear if the overseeing Department did as well. This could make it even more challenging to recruit talented teachers to underserved rural and urban schools, worsening educator shortages.

School principals also worry that without federal Title II funds dedicated to teacher training and class-size reduction, they will struggle to maintain a qualified teaching staff in challenging subjects like math, special education, or bilingual education. Ultimately, these ripple effects will impact students in the classroom: if it becomes harder to hire and retain good teachers, students will bear the consequences.

Perhaps the most profound risk in dismantling the Department of Education is to educational equity – the principle that all children, regardless of background, deserve a fair shot. Equity concerns have always driven the federal government’s involvement in education. From the desegregation of schools in the 1950s and ’60s (enforced by federal courts and agencies) to the passage of laws ensuring services for English language learners and students with disabilities in the 1970s, Washington became a guarantor of students’ civil rights when states fell short. Taking that guarantor away raises painful historical memories. It was federal pressure – sometimes backed by the threat of funding cuts – that forced states to finally integrate schools after Brown v. Board of Education. It was federal law that required schools to serve children with disabilities who had previously been turned away at the schoolhouse door. And it’s federal oversight today that pushes schools to not suspend or expel disproportionately high numbers of Black and brown students, for example.

If that oversight is removed, will those hard-won gains endure? Many fear they would not. Vulnerable student populations – including students of color, low-income students, those with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ youth – have the most to lose if federal protections and funding vanish. These students often rely on a mix of federal programs: Title I for extra academic support, IDEA for therapy services, Title IX to ensure they aren’t subject to sexual or gender-based harassment, and so on. Eliminating the Department of Education doesn’t automatically erase the laws behind these supports, but it does remove the agency designed to implement and enforce them. It’s not hard to imagine a scenario where, without federal monitoring, some states quietly scale back efforts that don’t align with the prevailing political winds – perhaps investing less in minority college outreach, or being less aggressive in correcting inequities in discipline or school resources. Over time, disparities between states could grow so stark that America’s children live in “separate and unequal” educational worlds depending on their state or district. This is exactly what the Department of Education was created to help prevent​. Parents and educators who have fought for equity are thus raising red flags: they do not want to turn back the clock on civil rights and educational fairness.

Protecting Quality and Fairness in Education

Donald Trump’s proposal to close the U.S. Department of Education is a dramatic move that appeals to frustration with the status quo – but it carries enormous risks for the very people who care most about our schools: parents, students, and teachers. It’s easy to critique a distant federal bureaucracy and its shortcomings. It’s much harder to replace the genuine benefits it provides to millions of children every day. The federal Department of Education is certainly not perfect, and reasonable people can debate how much influence Washington should have in our local schools. Yet, as this analysis has shown, eliminating the Department is not a simple cost-cutting reform – it’s a fundamental upheaval with far-reaching consequences. It would affect everything from the funding in your child’s classroom to the rights your child has at school to the consistency of the education they receive if your family moves to a new state.

Parents and educators, in particular, have a lot at stake in this debate. They are on the front lines – they will be the ones scrambling to fill gaps if federal support is yanked away, or trying to advocate for their children in the absence of federal protections. A critical look at Trump’s executive order suggests that it is driven more by political ideology than by a clear plan to improve schools. Yes, empowering local stakeholders is a worthy goal, and no one knows a community’s needs better than its families and teachers. But there is a crucial role for our national community – the federal government – in ensuring that no schools are forgotten and no children are overlooked. The challenge is to balance local innovation with national fairness. We should be wary of false choices that say we can have one only by destroying the other.

As this proposal is debated, it’s vital for parents and school professionals to raise their voices. Ask the hard questions: How will special education be funded in my state without federal dollars? Who will hold my state accountable if they fail to serve all kids? What will happen to my teenager’s college aid if the department is gone? These questions don’t have easy answers in the executive order. It will fall to lawmakers – and the public – to demand answers before any irreversible steps are taken. Protecting quality and fairness in education has always required vigilance and advocacy. That doesn’t change if power shifts to 50 different state capitols; in fact, the job of advocates may become even more daunting.

In the end, everyone shares the goal of providing an excellent education for our children. Achieving that requires resources, accountability, and inclusion. The U.S. Department of Education was created to help ensure those elements are in place nationwide​.

Abolishing it would place a heavy burden on states to not only maintain but improve education with less federal partnership. History gives reasons to be skeptical of that approach. As this critical analysis highlights, there is a real risk that dismantling the Department would dismantle important safeguards and supports for students. Parents and educators invested in protecting educational quality and fairness should weigh those risks carefully – and make their voices heard in a debate that will shape the future of America’s schools.

Sources:

• theguardian.com​
• theguardian.com;
• Citizens Against Government Waste​: cagw.org
• Reagan Presidential Library​: reaganlibrary.gov
• Mystic Stamp (History)​: info.mysticstamp.com
• U.S. Dept. of Education data​: ed.gov
• Fox News: foxnews.com
• Education Week​: edweek.org​
• National Center for Education Statistics​: nces.ed.gov

Become Your Community’s Educational Hero!

Unlock critical mental health insights and cutting-edge education research for only $5/month or $50 annually. This Week in School Psychology simplifies complex topics and empowers educators and parents alike. Your subscription keeps independent, innovative science alive. Join today and champion transformative education!