Trump fulfill its promise to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education 

What is the Department of Education — and What Was Promised The U.S. Department of Education (ED) was created in 1979, under President Jimmy Carter and Congress.   Since its inception, ED has been the principal federal agency overseeing many aspects of U.S. public schooling: distributing federal funds to K–12 schools, managing programs for disadvantaged and disabled students, administering college financial aid and student loans, enforcing civil rights in education, overseeing educational research, and more.  When Trump ran to return to the presidency, a key plank of his education policy was to shrink — or ultimately eliminate — the federal government’s role in schooling. His view: education decisions should belong to states and local communities, not Washington. Critics saw that as an attempt to dismantle whatever federal oversight existed; supporters celebrated it as returning control to the people closest to local schools.  On March 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled something like “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” That order directed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to shrink the Department of Education.”   McMahon later said she might be the last Education Secretary ever — a clear signal the administration was serious about shutting down ED.  However: fully abolishing a Cabinet-level department requires an act of Congress. So the “dismantling” would need legislative approval — not just an executive order.  Because that kind of Congressional approval seemed unlikely (given narrow majorities and political obstacles), the administration pursued a different path — gradually transferring away key functions and shrinking its workforce — a “winding down” instead of an abrupt shutdown.   

What Has the Trump Administration Actually Done Over the course of 2025 — following the executive order — the Trump administration has taken concrete steps toward dismantling the Department of Education. • Massive layoffs and workforce reduction Officially, the department cut nearly half of its workforce. From roughly 4,100 employees, ED staff dropped to about 2,100.  Many staff were placed on paid administrative leave beginning March 21, with separation or retirement packages offered by June 9.  The effect: large parts of the department no longer had active personnel to run or manage programs. That includes offices that historically provided support for disadvantaged or disabled students, civil-rights enforcement, research, and oversight.  

• Transfer of major functions to other federal agencies Through a series of inter-agency agreements (IAAs), many of ED’s core responsibilities have been shifted to other departments. The administration frames this as “breaking up the federal education bureaucracy” and returning power to the states.  Here are key transfers announced in November 2025:  Former ED Unit / Program New Assigned Agency / Department Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (including Title I funding for low-income school districts) U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) 

Much of Office of Postsecondary Education (including TRIO, teacher-training, grants for low-income college students) Department of Labor (Labor) 

Office of Indian Education (support for Native American schooling) U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) 

International education, foreign-language studies, global programs U.S. Department of State (State) 

Child-care grants for college students / student-parent support programs U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)  

Officials say these agreements represent the most sweeping transfer of responsibilities in the 45-year history of the Department of Education.  • What remains in ED — at least for now Despite these transfers, not everything is gone. Some core responsibilities remain with ED: it continues to oversee the federal student loan portfolio (worth around US $1.6 trillion) and to manage college financial aid and accreditation functions.  Still, the department's footprint is shrinking fast, and what remains may be only a skeleton of its former self.

Formal justification / official explanation 

According to the administration: moving programs to other agencies reduces bureaucracy, increases efficiency, and gives states more control over schools. Secretary McMahon has repeatedly framed the restructuring as part of a broader mission to return education to the states and empower parents.  From this viewpoint, ED was seen as a bloated, overgrown federal entity interfering with local schooling, and this overhaul was necessary to “refocus education on students, families and schools.”   

Why the Administration Did It — The Philosophy and Politics Understanding the dismantling requires seeing the broader ideological and political context under which this is happening. • Underlying philosophy: decentralization & state/local control For many conservatives — including Trump — federal control over education has always been problematic. They argue that schooling is best decided at state or local levels because communities differ widely: in their values, demographics, economic conditions, languages, cultures. A one-size-fits-all federal approach, they say, leads to bureaucratic overreach, inefficiency, and suppression of local control.  By dismantling ED, the administration claims to be returning power to those who know local needs best — state officials, local school boards, parents, communities.  • Political roots and campaign promises During Trump’s campaign and political rise, eliminating or shrinking the federal Department of Education was a recurring promise. Conservative think tanks and policy blueprints (like Project 2025) long argued for reducing federal intervention, expanding “school choice,” private and charter schooling, and giving parents more control.  Once back in power, Trump moved quickly in 2025 to make that goal a reality — starting with an executive order and then following up with administrative restructurings and transfers.  • Claims of bureaucracy and inefficiency Supporters of the dismantling argue that the Department of Education had become bloated and inefficient. They claim it added layers of red tape that slowed down funding, imposed uniform standards that may not fit every community, and maintained unnecessary offices. By redistributing tasks among different departments — each with its own expertise — they say the new setup can operate more leanly and responsively.  Additionally, they emphasize parental rights and local control, especially pushback against what they see as federal overreach — for instance, in matters of curriculum, civil-rights enforcement in schools, and cultural/ideological issues.   

Reactions, Concerns, and Risks — What Critics Say The dismantling has triggered sharp criticism from educators, civil-rights groups, unions, and many state education officials. Their concerns highlight possible consequences — especially for vulnerable students. • Disruption of essential support and services Critics warn that transferring education responsibilities to agencies with no prior experience — like Labor, Interior, State, or HHS — could disrupt vital programs. These include support for low-income schools (Title I), services for students with disabilities, support for Native American education, adult education, English-language acquisition, college-access programs, grants, and more.  Because these agencies are not set up to run school-district grants or manage complex education-funding formulas, there's a real risk that funds will flow late or unevenly — harming schools that depend heavily on federal aid.  Some education-policy analysts fear that these shifts will result in fewer protections for disabled students, fewer civil-rights oversight, less accountability for schools, and a weakening of public education quality — especially in low-income or historically marginalized communities.  

Legal and constitutional questions 

Because the ED was created by Congress, only Congress can formally abolish it. Critics argue that simply reassigning functions via executive order or agency-to-agency transfers may violate federal law.  Some have called the administration’s actions “reckless” or “illegal,” especially when they involve cutting civil-rights protections, slashing funding, or undermining oversight that schools rely on.  There is also worry that states and local school districts, especially underfunded ones, will struggle to pick up the slack — potentially widening inequities between rich and poor districts.  • Moral and social-justice implications Many of the ED’s prior roles concerned ensuring equal access to education, protecting civil rights in schools, supporting students with disabilities, and providing special programs for disadvantaged populations. Critics fear that dismantling ED undermines these protections and abandons vulnerable students.  For instance, special-education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) could be disrupted; support for English-language learners could decline; Title I funding for low-income communities could become less consistent; college-access grants and programs for low-income or first-generation students might suffer — all contributing to increased inequality.  Some civil-rights advocates warn that depriving ED of its oversight role might weaken enforcement of non-discrimination in education, especially in schools serving minority communities.   

What This Means for Students, Schools, and the Future of U.S. Education Given the scale and speed of the changes, the dismantling of the Department of Education could reshape American education — for better or worse, depending on one’s perspective. Here are likely consequences and open questions. • Increased local control — but uneven capacity If states and local authorities truly take over the responsibilities, some communities may benefit from more tailored approaches: curriculum formats, fund-usage decisions, local governance, parental choice, and more responsive oversight. This could be especially appealing in areas where the federal government’s “one-size-fits-all” policies felt overly rigid or misaligned with local needs. However, many states and districts — especially those already underfunded — may lack the capacity, expertise, or infrastructure to manage large-scale federal programs. This could lead to delays, mismanagement, or cuts. Especially vulnerable populations (low-income students, disabled students, minority communities) may be disproportionately affected. • Fragmentation and complexity of oversight With multiple federal agencies now responsible for pieces of what used to be a centralized department, coordination could become more difficult. For example, a school district might now deal with Labor for funding, Interior for Native American programs, HHS for childcare grants, and State for international education. This raises risks of confusion, bureaucratic delay, and reduced accountability. Also: the agencies taking over may not have deep experience or long-term commitment to educational issues. Their priorities or organizational culture might differ from ED — which could mean less attention to issues like civil rights, equity, and special services. • Risk to equity, inclusion, and vulnerable populations Without a strong federal agency overseeing civil-rights protections and distributing equal-opportunity funds, disparities between wealthy and poor districts — or minority vs. majority communities — may widen. Services for disabled students, English-language learners, low-income families, rural or remote districts, Native American communities — all of these are at risk. Also: college-access programs, financial aid, grants and support for disadvantaged students might become harder to access for some. That could limit higher-education opportunities and widen socioeconomic inequalities. • Political and legal uncertainty Because abolishing the ED formally requires congressional action — and because many of these changes are being made by executive order and administrative moves — there is a strong possibility of court challenges and political pushback. Many state officials, educators, unions, and civil-rights groups are already contesting the legality and morality of these reforms.  Even if not undone by courts, future administrations or Congress could reverse or modify many of these changes — meaning a period of instability and unpredictability for students, schools, and funding agencies.  

What Supporters Say — And Why They Believe 

It’s the Right Move From the perspective of the Trump administration and its supporters, dismantling the Department of Education is a long-overdue reform. Their arguments include: Reducing federal bureaucracy: ED had grown large and powerful; supporters argue it created red tape, standardized policies even where local conditions differ, and added inefficiency. Breaking up ED — and shifting control to states — is seen as restoring flexibility. Empowering parents and local communities: Education decisions should be made by people who know their communities best: local educators, parents, local boards, not distant federal bureaucrats. Local governance may lead to more relevant curricula, better adaptation to community needs, and stronger accountability to parents. Shrinking the size of federal government: For many Republicans and conservatives, a central goal is limited government. Reducing or eliminating a large federal department aligns with their view that many federal functions are better managed at state or local levels. Encouraging school choice and diversity: Some supporters highlight that without a centralized ED dictating rules, there may be more room for charter schools, private schools, homeschooling, and alternative education models — offering parents and students more choice.   Why Many See This as a Risky Gamble — and What It Says About the Future The push to dismantle the Department of Education represents one of the biggest shifts in U.S. education policy in decades. Whether it succeeds — or backfires — could affect generations of students. Here’s why many see it as a high-risk gamble. • Education becomes more of a “pay-to-play” or “local-resource” proposition Without federal oversight and funding guarantees, quality of education risks being tied more strongly to local wealth and resources. Poorer districts, rural areas, underfunded schools, minority communities, and special-needs students may bear the brunt. Inequality in educational outcomes could worsen. • Fragmented oversight weakens accountability and civil rights protections With multiple agencies handling parts of education, it may be harder to monitor compliance with civil rights laws, special-education mandates, nondiscrimination policies, and equal-opportunity requirements. Vulnerable students — disabled, from minority communities, from low-income families — could lose protection and support. • Educational policy subject to political swings and instability Once a centralized federal department is dismantled, future administrations and Congress will have limited institutional infrastructure to roll back or moderate sweeping changes. This could make education policy highly volatile, subject to changing political winds, and less consistent over time. • Risk of neglect or inattention Agencies that absorb ED’s former functions may prioritize other responsibilities, or see education as secondary. Without a dedicated education department, long-term planning, research, data collection, enforcement, gap monitoring and strategic national-level thinking may suffer.  

Conclusion: A Historic Shift — With Great Stakes In 2025, the Trump administration has taken bold, sweeping steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education — fulfilling a long-time campaign promise. Through layoffs, executive orders, and reassignments, the backbone of federal education oversight is being dismantled. Supporters believe this represents a restoration of local control, reduced bureaucracy, greater freedom for parents and states — a chance for more tailored, community-driven education. Critics warn that the move threatens long-standing protections, services, and supports for millions of American students — especially those most vulnerable: poor, disabled, minorities, or from underserved communities. They warn it risks turning education into a privilege rather than a right, and may weaken social equity, accountability, and national standards. Whether this reorganization ultimately leads to better education — or deeper inequality — remains to be seen. What is certain: the U.S. education system is undergoing one of its most fundamental transformations in decades. Given the uncertainty ahead — legal challenges, political backlash, state-by-state variation — students, parents, schools, and policymakers will need to watch closely. The next few years may determine whether this experiment becomes a new norm, or whether America swings back toward a strong federal role in education once more. If you follow this issue, keep an eye on: Lawsuits challenging the reorganization or layoffs of ED staff. How the agencies now responsible for education programs — Labor, Interior, State, HHS — handle their new duties, especially funding flow and communications with school districts. Whether states can handle the increased responsibilities, and whether funding and oversight remain consistent. Impact on disadvantaged communities: low-income schools, students with disabilities, rural districts, minority groups. Congressional action: whether any bill will be introduced to formally abolish ED — or to restore federal oversight.