The Department of Education
Should the Department of Education be dismantled? Viewpoints from multiple sides.
Enjoying Framechange? Forward to a friend to help spread the word!
New to Framechange? Sign up for free to see multiple sides in your inbox.
Learn more about our mission to reduce polarization and how we represent different viewpoints here.
What’s happening
Yesterday, President Trump signed an executive order instructing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” It articulates an ultimate goal of shifting ED’s primary functions to the states and requires ED to ensure any remaining funding recipients don’t advance “DEI or gender ideology.”
Today, Trump followed up the order with an announcement he will shift ED’s $1.6T student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration (SBA) and its student disability programs to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The moves come amid Trump’s broader push to significantly reduce the scope of ED operations. Earlier this month, ED cut its workforce by roughly half, down to around 2,183 employees. Last month, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cancelled roughly $900M in ED research contracts.
What does ED do: ED does not have any influence on curriculum or what is taught in schools. It has primarily served three big-bucket functions:
Funding K-12 programs for disadvantaged and disabled students: It provides billions in aid to local school districts to support learning for low-income and disabled students, primarily through its Title I program for low-income students and its Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) fund, which provides special education grants. (IDEA will apparently shift to HHS based on Trump’s announcement.)
Protecting civil rights in education: It monitors and enforces federal laws that prohibit discrimination in education on the basis of race, gender, disability, and other characteristics through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Providing student loans and Pell Grants for higher education: It has administered and overseen the $1.6T student loan portfolio – which will shift to SBA – and provides separate Pell Grants, which are financial aid for low– and middle-income undergraduate students.
ED also runs a number of other programs focused on education research and support for school improvement. Its total 2024 outlays, including student loans, were approximately $268B. The majority of K-12 public school funding comes from state and local governments, with ED accounting for roughly 14%.
Origins: ED was established as a cabinet-level agency through the Department of Education Organization Act (1979) passed by Congress and signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, who had made a campaign promise to create a standalone education department amid strong support from teachers’ unions.
Can it be shut down? Trump cannot completely eliminate ED on his own, which his executive order seems to acknowledge. Doing so would require an act of Congress. Some of ED’s programs – such as Title I – are also written into law and unlikely to be removed without congressional participation.
Notably, the Trump administration has previously signaled an intention to redistribute some ED functions to other agencies rather than completely eradicate them. Trump had recently suggested shifting the student loan portfolio to the SBA. Members of his inner circle, including former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, have also outlined similar recommendations, including shifting civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
While it is still unclear the extent to which Trump will disband or migrate ED’s existing functions, his actions so far have surfaced a variety of viewpoints on the value and effectiveness of ED in its current form. This week, we take a look at the viewpoints from multiple sides. Let us know what you think.
Notable viewpoints
More supportive of dismantling the Department of Education:
ED is an example of federal overreach and inhibits efforts at the state and local levels.
The ED is overly bureaucratic and incentivizes state and local education leaders to manipulate the system for federal grant money. For instance, schools encourage parents to undersell their income levels on forms to help qualify for Title I funding (i.e., support for low-income students).
With student test scores largely stagnating since ED was created, there is no evidence ED has helped improve learning outcomes or shrink the achievement gap.
Rather than forcing states to compete for disparate levels of K-12 grant funding based on the extent to which they align to certain – largely left-leaning – ideologies, the ED should disperse its $100B+ per year to state and local governments in the form of block grants based on state population and leave it up to states on how to spend it.
“Ironically, the same teachers unions now warning of disaster if the DOE is eliminated once aggressively opposed the department’s overreach. Unionized teachers even aligned with conservatives to block the Obama administration’s efforts to tie teacher evaluations to student test scores.” (Paul Vallas, Chicago Tribune.)
The primary functions of ED would be better-run in other areas of the federal government.
While many Democrats argue that shutting down the ED would result in the end of Title I and IDEA, which amount to roughly $30B in annual grants and 6% of the amount state and local governments spend on education, there is no indication Trump wants to completely abolish those programs. Both would fit well under HHS.
While the Trump administration is unlikely to be able to shut down the ED completely, it can and should reform it in meaningful ways. For instance, significantly reforming the student loan program through actions such as ending excessive loan forgiveness (through which the Biden administration effectively shifted $400B+ in debt relief costs to taxpayers), requiring loan-program colleges to assume partial liability for student loan forgiveness, and ending federal loans for graduate students.
Reforming the ED is needed. The DOJ is better suited to oversee civil rights protections for students while the Treasury Department is better suited to manage student loans and prevent their unchecked growth. (Editor’s note: Student loans will now be managed by SBA.)
The federal government arguably has no constitutional right to govern education because education was not mentioned in the enumeration of powers for Congress or for the executive office in Article I or Article II of the Constitution. Some programs within the ED are constitutionally-sound, however, such as those supporting Native American education and enforcing civil rights.
ED promotes a progressive agenda misaligned to the priorities of most Americans.
While ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has an important mission of protecting civil rights in schools, it has been used to promote a broad array of left-leaning priorities such as critical race theory and gender ideology. OCR should be folded into the DOJ, which is better positioned to enforce civil rights protections.
Republicans can reform ED for needed shifts in K-12 education, including unwinding Democratic-led policies on issues related to school choice, DEI, and Title IX. Collateral damage of left-leaning policies has also resulted in the neglected civil rights of Jewish students and the fostering of hostile leaning environments in the name of “anti-racism.”
More opposed to dismantling the Department of Education:
Shutting down ED would jeopardize equal access to education.
ED does not drive or interfere with state education policy; rather, it plays a critical role in ensuring all students get fair access to education by providing aid to schools with disadvantaged students and ensuring civil rights related to race, disability, and gender are protected. Shutting it down would jeopardize those protections.
ED’s founding mandate to ensure equal access to education for everyone is under direct assault from Trump’s ED cutbacks. Its current budget goes directly toward important initiatives aligned to its mission – roughly $19B toward schools serving low-income students, roughly $16B for supporting students with disabilities, and roughly $50B+ for Pell Grants and subsidized Stafford student loans.
“Without federal oversight and funding [provided by ED], programs like Title I could vanish or be run by misguided state lawmakers deadset on upending funding models based on equal treatment under the law, leaving students without critical support. Public schools are already facing enormous challenges, and stripping away these resources would widen the gap between affluent and low-income communities, making it even harder for working families to access high-quality education.” (Richard Fowler, Fox News.)
A complete dismantling of ED would threaten support for 7.5M students with disabilities, access to career and technical programs for 12M students, and reduced opportunities for 10M+ students that rely on Pell Grants and federal loans for college. Furthermore, an estimated 420,000 teacher jobs would be erased, driving fewer one-on-one support opportunities for students in need. (Summarized from statement by National Education Association (NEA).)
Trump’s actions so far threaten the continued operability of critical programs.
Trump’s recent layoff of 1,300+ ED workers will significantly threaten the ability of the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to protect civil rights for young students. The OCR lost at least 240 of its 568 employees, primarily attorneys that investigate discrimination complaints against schools.
The Trump administration’s dismantling of ED’s research functions and canceling of $900M in contracts – which include efforts to track data on school performance – will make it more difficult to monitor the performance of school districts and help policymakers address potential disparities in education going forward.
Dismantling parts of ED or transferring aspects of it to other agencies would jeopardize protections for vulnerable students it is designed to protect. In particular, moving the OCR to the DOJ or transferring IDEA oversight to HHS would shift accountability and enforcement to organizations not designed for it.
The push by Trump and many Republicans to shift federal education funding more toward block grants – which would allow states and school districts to spend blocks of federal funding however they see fit, including on school choice initiatives – would undermine the stability of public schools that are critical for low-income students.
Dismantling ED risks alienating voters.
A majority of Americans do not support eliminating ED. A 2025 PBS News/NPR/Marist poll found that 63% of respondents opposed eliminating it, while 37% supported its elimination.
Trump’s targeting of ED risks alienating his own supporters. For instance, in Sarasota County in Florida, roughly 60% of voters supported Trump and 84% supported raising property taxes to support local public schools. If ED were eradicated, Sarasota would lose an estimated “$12.3 million for special education, $11.4 million for schools serving low-income students, and more than $4 million in other federal funds.” (Summarized from Jack Schneider, The Nation.)
Other viewpoints:
The Trump administration’s ambitions for cutting back ED are likely less dramatic than appears on the surface. Most recommendations – including from Trump’s former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 – call for reassigning many of ED’s core functions, rather than abolishing them altogether.
“Contrary to the fears of Democrats, reallocating the programs inside the Education Department to other parts of the federal government cannot upend public schools — especially given that the department only funds about one-tenth of the schools’ budgets to begin with. But contrary to the hopes of Republicans, it can’t do much to shrink the size of the federal government, either.” (Ramesh Ponnuru, Washington Post.)
Because congressional Republicans have tried in the past and failed to pass meaningful legislation aimed to end or significantly reallocate ED’s mandate – and the Senate filibuster would make it difficult to overcome current Democratic opposition – attempting to completely eradicate ED now is likely a waste of energy and resources for conservatives.
Be heard
We want to hear from you! Comment below with your perspective on the Department of Education and we may feature it in our socials or future newsletters. Below are topic ideas to consider.
Do you support or oppose efforts to dismantle the Department of Education in its current form?
What are some arguments or supporting points you appreciate about a viewpoint you disagree with?
Snippets
Columbia University agreed to President Trump’s wide range of demands in exchange for the unfreezing of $400M in federal funding to the university. The university’s concessions include banning masks, empowering police officers to arrest students, and appointing new leadership of its controversial Middle East studies department.
The Israeli military resumed ground operations in Gaza, a day after it launched surprise airstrikes across the strip that killed more than 400 Palestinians. The offensives break a ceasefire that has largely stood since January.
The Trump administration announced that it deported hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, invoking a wartime law known as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. A judge temporarily blocked the move hours after Trump’s initial invocation, and has instructed the Trump administration to explain how its failure to turn around some deportation flights after the court order was not a violation of the order.
Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to an immediate pause on strikes against energy infrastructure in Ukraine after a two hour call with President Trump. Russia declined to agree to a broader 30-day halt in fighting endorsed by the White House.
The Federal Reserve held core interest rates steady at 4.25%-4.5%, citing uncertainty around inflation and the economy from President Trump’s policy shifts. Chair Jerome Powell said inflation from tariffs is expected to be “transitory,” driving a rally in stock prices.
Give us your feedback! Please let us know how we can improve.
Music on the bottom
Check out this funky ballad, “Rowboat,” by up-and-coming pop fusion band Justine & Leo, straight out of LA.
Listen on Spotify, Apple Music, or Amazon Music.
The Dept of Education is codefied so it can’t shut down. The Dept of Education receives $102 billion dollars in funding each year. It spends only 7.6% of that money on local school districts. What do they do with the rest of that money?!?
Furthermore it is not an enumerated power in the Constitution, meaning it was not given to any of the three branches. It therefore belongs to the states.
Who doesn’t want to stop this corruption? And why not?