How Would Trump’s Plan to Close the Department of Education Actually Function?
The U.S. Department of Education may end up just being a large building with empty offices.
Despite appointing Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, Trump has stuck to his promise to eliminate the federal agency.
He has also pledged to support universal school choice and halt practices like gender-affirming care in schools. Moreover, he plans to use the department’s funding mechanisms to abolish Critical Race Theory and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs in both K–12 and higher education.
But how exactly will Trump achieve these changes and shut down the $80 billion department?
Related Stories
According to McCluskey, the Department of Education, founded in 1979, is the smallest federal cabinet with around 4,100 employees.
Given that it’s not seen as an essential pillar of the U.S. government, there might be enough bipartisan backing to reduce the agency’s size by transferring certain functions to other federal entities.
McCluskey also noted that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee the right to education.
Many public schools and higher education institutions are primarily funded at the state and local levels, with curriculum decisions made by state and local education boards.
Private colleges, although funded by tuition and donations, still receive federal financial aid for students.
McCluskey suggested that programs like higher education financial aid could be shifted to the Treasury, while civil rights investigations could be handled by the Department of Justice.
Funding programs for low-income school districts and special needs initiatives could potentially be overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Furthermore, functions like data analysis and services currently provided by the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics and Institute of Education Sciences could be absorbed by the Census Bureau within the U.S. Department of Commerce
Through block grants, state education departments could manage smaller federally funded programs focused on subjects, nutrition, career and technical education, and other academic or student wellness areas.
McCluskey emphasized that significant cost savings could be achieved if state employees administered these programs instead of both state and federal employees.
He also mentioned that Trump could potentially withhold funding from state education agencies that continue to implement DEI and CRT policies if he deems them discriminatory based on race.
Will Congress Support Downsizing?
The upcoming legislative session is expected to prioritize changes to the Department of Education.
Rounds emphasized the need to abolish the federal Department of Education, stating that local control is preferable in education.
Rep. Virginia Foxx, the chair of the committee, supports returning decision-making power to the local level while keeping schools accountable to stakeholders.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, expected to lead the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, has been critical of the Department of Education but has not called for its elimination.
Cassidy and other legislators introduced the Dismantle DEI Act, aimed at cutting federal funding to programs that promote discrimination. This includes educational accreditation agencies.
Will Policies be Reversed?
Recent activities under the Biden administration have focused on DEI initiatives and student loan forgiveness, as reported on the Department of Education website.
Spreitzer believes that Trump is likely to use executive authority to remove DEI and CRT from federally funded programs.
She noted that federal funding would be a key lever in enforcing new requirements.
Will Teachers Accept Changes?
Randi Weingarten, President of the American Federation of Teachers, expressed both optimism and concern regarding the potential changes to the U.S. Department of Education.
She emphasized the importance of focusing on project-based instruction, career and technical education, and apprenticeships for improved education and job prospects.
She highlighted the impact on funding for vulnerable groups, children with disabilities, and first-generation college students.
The Department of Education was contacted for comment, but no response was provided.
