The Trump Administration and Education: Dismantling, Restructuring, and the Future of American Education

Introduction

The Trump administration's approach to education was marked by significant policy shifts, a focus on returning authority to the states, and efforts to dismantle or restructure the Department of Education. These actions sparked considerable debate and legal challenges, raising fundamental questions about the role of the federal government in education, civil rights protections, and the allocation of resources for students across the nation.

The Push to Dismantle the Department of Education

Executive Orders and Layoffs

President Donald Trump acted on a campaign promise in March when he signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education and returning education authority to the states. Upon taking office earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order saying his administration would “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.” At a signing ceremony at the White House, Trump said he had instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take “all lawful steps to shut down the department … as quickly as possible.” McMahon then ordered mass layoffs, saying in a memo circulated to employees that her ultimate goal was to “shut down the Department,” a move that has not been approved by Congress. The president needs congressional approval to dissolve the Education Department, but his executive order will scale back the department to only “core necessities” like Pell Grants, Title I funding and funding resources for children with disabilities and special needs.

Supreme Court Intervention

The Supreme Court in July gave Trump the go-ahead on the efforts he has taken so far to dismantle the agency, clearing the way for him to fire 1,400 workers affected by mass layoffs. The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move ahead with plans to carry out mass layoffs at the Department of Education that were blocked by a federal judge. The conservative-majority court, without any explanation, granted an emergency application from the administration that blocks the federal judge's ruling. The court's three liberal members objected, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a blistering dissenting opinion. "When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it," she wrote. She said the decision also "rewards clear defiance" of the Constitution. President Donald Trump praised the court's decision. “The United States Supreme Court has handed a Major Victory to Parents and Students across the Country, by declaring the Trump Administration may proceed on returning the functions of the Department of Education BACK TO THE STATES,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Now, with this GREAT Supreme Court Decision, our Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, may begin this very important process."

Opposition and Concerns

Skye Perryman, the chief executive and president of Democracy Forward, which is representing the coalition of groups that filed the lawsuit, called the Supreme Court's decision “devastating” to public education. “On its shadow docket, the Court has yet again ruled to overturn the decision of two lower courts without argument. District Judge Myong Joun wrote in his May 22 ruling that the evidence “reveals that the defendants’ true intention is to effectively dismantle the department without an authorizing statute.” The administration in its early months has sought to aggressively reduce the size of some government agencies to the point of making them ineffective, prompting claims that it has usurped the role of Congress, which set them up and funds them.

The Role and Mission of the Department of Education

Core Responsibilities

The goal of the department, according to its mission statement, is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” Education is primarily a state and local responsibility, with the Education Department providing supplemental funds to help schools, districts and higher education systems reach their goals. The Trump Administration can push through with its plans to dismantle the Department of Education after the Supreme Court allowed it to continue laying off nearly 1,400 employees. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education," McMahon wrote in a social media post.

Read also: Impact of Trump on Student Debt

Key Federal Programs

With an operating budget of roughly $238 billion, the department’s elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 18,200 school districts and over 50 million students attending roughly 98,000 public schools and 32,000 private schools. So where does the Education Department’s money go?

Title I: This $18 billion program supports school districts with a high proportion of students from low-income families, helping to offset the disproportionately low amount of revenue they generate from property taxes and to better serve students who often have higher needs. The civil rights era program, established in 1965 by former President Lyndon B. Immediately after the ruling, firings once put on hold were continued-with some department employees reporting that their last day is set to be on Aug. 1.
Office for Civil Rights: A central responsibility of the Education Department is to investigate and resolve violations of federal civil rights laws, which prohibit schools from discriminating against students and staff on the basis of disability, race, religion and sex.
Institute for Education Sciences: This arm of the Education Department is responsible for overseeing research and evaluation of student achievement and well-being. Among other things, it disaggregates data by demographics to help policymakers better understand the state of education.

Potential Impacts of Dismantling the Department

Abolishing the department entirely would require congressional approval, and Trump is unlikely to muster enough support from a narrowly divided - though Republican-controlled - Congress to do so. If Trump is successful in closing the department, the federal programs overseen by the Education Department, like Title I and the federal student loan program, would need a new home. Many of them would likely land at HHS or the Justice Department, or be collapsed into a big block grant to states - the latter of which is preferred by Trump and his supporters. McMahon previously hinted that some responsibilities could be taken from the Department of Education and outsourced to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Justice Department, and the Treasury Department.

Read also: The Impact on Education

Concerns Regarding Specific Programs and Protections

Funding for Students from Low-Income Households

The department runs Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, an $18-billion program which directs funds to school districts with a high percentage of children from low-income families. Gutting the department would likely move Title I funding in the form of block grants, which some advocates fear could facilitate states siphoning away from public school funds. Project 2025, the conservative playbook that Trump has denied involvement with, although some of his second-term policies mirror those laid out in the initiative, proposed that the Title I program should be phased out over a decade-long period. Such a loss would be “devastating,” said Judith Browne Dianis of civil rights organization Advancement Project, in a TIME article she authored in February. by exacerbating the gap between the haves and have-nots causing further loss of resources and support,” argued Dianis. “It could result in the loss of 180,000 jobs for educators, resulting in an adverse economic impact on teachers and their families while also making classrooms more crowded. These layoffs would include reading specialists, teaching assistants, and support staff who play an important role in guaranteeing that children have the tools to learn at an appropriate pace.” According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress in July 2024, ending Title I could have negative impacts on some 2.8 million students.

Support for Children with Disabilities

Another core responsibility of the department is to oversee grant programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The programs, which amounted to some $15 billion in 2024, helps school districts support students with disabilities by providing federal funding for special education services. As of 2023, the number of students who received special education under IDEA programs was 7.5 million, or around 15% of all public school students. In March, Trump said he plans to move programs for students with special needs to the HHS. Advocates have pushed back against this policy, saying that the department does not have the necessary educational expertise. “Students with disabilities don’t belong in a medical model,” non-profit organization The Arc said in a March blog. “They belong in classrooms, learning alongside their peers, and preparing for bright futures. Moving IDEA to HHS risks turning back the clock on inclusion and sends a harmful message that children with disabilities are ‘patients’ to be managed rather than students with potential to be fulfilled.”

Student Loans

The Department of Education currently manages about $1.6 billion in student loans belonging to almost 43 million Americans, primarily through the Federal Student Aid office. The department also administers the Free Application for Federal Student Aid program, which allows students to apply for grants, work-study funds, loans, and other college aid. But Trump wants to move the management of the student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration (SBA), which is also undergoing mass personnel cuts. Experts have previously warned that the dismantling of the department could massively disrupt the student loan systems. Peter Granville, a fellow at progressive think tank The Century Foundation, told CBS News that nixing the department before outlining exact plans for student loans would be "a recipe for chaos and frustration for millions of people who rely" on the program. The SBA is also a “strange choice” of an agency to take over the management of the student loan portfolio, Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom research fellow Andrew Gillen previously told TIME, as the agency is for handling small business loans.

Civil Rights Protections

The department plays a key role in enforcing federal civil rights laws. It has an Office of Civil Rights, which implements laws against discrimination-based on age, sex, gender, race, or nationality-and investigates related complaints. The office has already been suffering from a lack of staffing and thousands of pending cases, due to staffing shortages and an increase in complaints during the Biden Administration. In 2024, the office received almost 23,000 complaints. Many of these complaints cover a variety of issues, such as race and religious tensions, as well as sexual violence. McMahon, in her confirmation hearing in February, said that the Office of Civil Rights’ tasks might be “better served” under the Justice Department. When McMahon took office, she recalibrated the department’s civil rights focus towards ending campus antisemitism, targeting transgender students’ protections, and dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices. As part of the steep cuts McMahon made, seven of the department’s 12 regional civil rights offices nationwide shuttered, effectively putting into question the fate of the complaints. By July, the department had dismissed thousands of these complaints, raising concerns about whether each case was being dutifully considered. With the Supreme Court ruling, the layoffs put on hold will continue and the enforcement of civil rights in schools is likely to take a hit-which will mean marginalized persons like women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and students with disabilities could lack available recourse and protections, according to Gaylynn Burroughs, vice president for education and workplace justice at the National Women’s Law Center. “For decades, the agency has played an essential role in safeguarding the rights of students, especially girls, students with disabilities, LGBTQI+ youth, and students of color,” Burroughs said in a statement.

DEI Efforts and Academic Freedom

Department of Education conceded the end of its February 14, 2025, “Dear Colleague” directive that sought to restrict diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts in schools and higher education institutions nationwide. “This ruling affirms what educators and communities have long known: celebrating the full existence of every person and sharing the truth about our history is essential,” said Sharif El-Mekki, CEO at The Center for Black Educator Development. “Today’s decision protects educators’ livelihoods and their responsibility to teach honestly. “Across the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student, so each feels safe, seen, and is prepared for the future. Donald Trump and Linda McMahon tried to use politically motivated attacks and vague directives to stifle speech and erase essential teaching and learning in our schools and universities. The courts rejected that attack on public education. While Trump and McMahon want to ban diversity, equity, and inclusion, educators know these values are at the core of our nation. Diversity is our uniqueness and our strength. Equity means every student gets what they need, when they need it, and in the way that serves them best. And inclusion means all students are seen, valued, respected, and have access to opportunities and support,” said Becky Pringle, president at the National Education Association. "The Trump administration’s unlawful Dear Colleague Letter and certification requirement have now been vacated and abandoned, underscoring how badly Trump and McMahon overreached in their attempt to interfere with curriculum and instruction. “This ruling ensures that educators can engage in scholarship and teach history, literature, and other subjects where race, gender, and the values of diversity, equity, and inclusion appear, without fear of arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement, said Sarah Hinger, deputy director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program. "We are deeply grateful to the courageous NEA-New Hampshire member educators who stood up for their students and their profession by participating in this lawsuit. Their actions and the rulings from courts on this issue reaffirm that every student deserves the opportunity to learn in a school where they are valued, seen, and supported for who they are, not erased by political agendas. And their leadership sends a clear message that educators, not politicians, belong at the center of decisions about teaching and learning. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said, “Today is a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have a right to an inclusive education free from censorship. The lawsuit was filed last year by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Hampshire and the ACLU of Massachusetts on behalf of the National Education Association (NEA), and the National Education Association-New Hampshire. The Center for Black Educator Development as well as several New Hampshire School Districts later joined the case as plaintiffs.

Broader Policy Initiatives

Transgender Athletes and Title IX

Another executive order issued this week, “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” barred transgender athletes from participating in women’s sports at school. The Education Department on Thursday announced investigations into two universities and an athletic association related to transgender athletes and the institutions’ alleged violations of Title IX, a federal law that is part of the Civil Rights Act and prohibits sex-based discrimination in education.

State Regulation of Artificial Intelligence

Today, President Trump issued an executive order attacking state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The order builds on the administration’s previous efforts, including its “AI Action Plan,” which directed agencies to ensure that AI development is “unencumbered.” The order directs federal agencies to withhold funding from states if they enact regulations that are more than “minimally burdensome.” It also establishes a task force to file lawsuits against states’ AI regulations and threatens to withhold critical broadband funding. “President Trump’s executive order doubles down on a dangerous policy that the Republican-led Congress has rejected not once, but twice: displacing states from their critical role in ensuring that AI is safe, trustworthy, and nondiscriminatory. Bipartisan groups of governors, attorneys general, and lawmakers have opposed these efforts for good reason: Although AI might bring substantial benefits, it also carries substantial risks, and America will not win the AI ‘race’ if the AI used by the government, employers, schools, and health care providers is hallucinatory, unreliable, and dangerous. “Moreover, the executive order is not just dangerous, it’s unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that the president may not unilaterally and retroactively change the conditions on federal grants to states after the fact.

tags: #Trump #Truth #Social #Department #of #Education