KIMBERLY COHEN—As President Trump takes office, his proposal to eliminate the Department of Education has become a contentious element of his policy agenda. He bases this proposal on longstanding conservative critiques of federal overreach in education and claims the current system indoctrinates “young people with inappropriate racial, sexual, and political material.”
Dismantling the Department of Education is not a new initiative. President Andrew Johnson established the first Department of Education in 1867, but public backlash over federal control of local schools led to its demotion into the Office of Education just one year later. The modern Department of Education, created under President Jimmy Carter in 1979, has faced consistent opposition from conservatives. Ronald Reagan, for example, made eliminating the Department a key promise during his 1980 presidential campaign, where he proposed moving student loan oversight to the Treasury Department and civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice. Although Reagan and subsequent Republican leaders supported abolishing the Department, these efforts repeatedly failed.
A misunderstanding of the Department’s role often fuels calls for its elimination. Contrary to common misconceptions, the Department does not control classroom curricula, which remains under the jurisdiction of school boards and state legislators. Instead, its purpose is to promote student achievement and ensure equal access to education. Despite providing only eight percent of elementary and secondary education funding, the Department plays a pivotal role in supplementing state and local budgets through programs like Title I, which provides financial support to low-income schools, and the Office of Special Education Programs, which aids students with disabilities. It also collects and analyzes valuable data on enrollment, testing, and school crime, which informs both policymakers and educators. Furthermore, the Department enforces anti-discrimination laws through its Office for Civil Rights, which investigates complaints of discrimination and ensures institutions comply with federal civil rights protections.
The process of eliminating a cabinet-level agency is not an easy feat. The president cannot dissolve the Department unilaterally; congressional approval is required. Although Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, overcoming the Senate filibuster to secure 60 votes poses a significant challenge. The House of Representatives also presents obstacles, as over 60 Republicans joined Democrats in 2023 to oppose an amendment seeking to abolish the Department. Likely recognizing these barriers, Trump has reframed his proposal as a “virtual closure” of the Department, focusing on budget cuts and restructuring, while remaining steadfast in returning education to the states.
Trump recently appointed Linda McMahon, former WWE executive and his former head of the Small Business Administration, as the education secretary. McMahon and the Trump administration may attempt to curtail the Department in other ways, such as drastically reducing its budget or shifting responsibilities to other agencies. Education funding might be distributed in the form of block grants with “fewer strings attached,” intending to give states more flexibility to design programs tailored to local needs. However, this flexibility might be detrimental, as critics warn that block grants lack oversight and risk misallocating resources.
Ironically, Trump’s proposal could face backlash from his own supporters. Republican-leaning states, particularly rural areas, rely on Title I funding for low-income schools. The Department also distributes $14 billion annually in special education grants, a bipartisan priority that supports children with disabilities. Individuals across the political spectrum depend on these protections, making the proposal a politically risky move. Furthermore, while the Trump administration emphasizes government decentralization, Trump also advocates cutting federal funding to schools that teach critical race theory, gender ideology, or other related content. Critics speculate that the Department must remain intact in order to implement his agenda, highlighting the contradictions in his plan.
Federal involvement in education is likely inevitable, making a dedicated federal agency essential to ensure equitable funding and preserve institutional knowledge. Eliminating the Department risks losing a professional bureaucracy of education experts who play a vital role in maintaining these efforts. Ultimately, the debate over the Department of Education extends beyond the fate of a single agency. It encapsulates the nation’s deeper ideological divide over the true root problems in the American education system and the balance of federal versus state control in shaping education.
