How Trump is Working to Shrink the Department of Education

Last updated 6 days ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The Trump Administration has managed a comprehensive effort in 2025 to dramatically reduce the size and influence of the U.S. Department of Education (ED).

Established by Congress in 1979, ED is the primary federal agency responsible for overseeing national education funding, managing student financial aid, and enforcing civil rights statutes in schools.

The 2025 strategy moves beyond typical budget cuts. It has included executive orders, staff reductions, and inter-agency transfers aimed at changing the federal government’s involvement in American schools.

Why It Matters

• Shrinking or dismantling the Department of Education could deeply reshape how federal education policy supports disadvantaged students, special education, and civil rights enforcement.
• Large cuts and consolidation of grant programs risk reducing the federal government’s ability to fund innovation, research, and evidence-based practices in K–12 and higher education.
• Massive staff reductions may impair institutional capacity, affecting everything from student loan oversight to data collection and enforcement of discrimination protections.
• The political and legal battle over the Department’s future isn’t just abstract: a federal judge has already blocked parts of the plan, underscoring that these changes are neither simple nor guaranteed.
• If successful, proponents argue this could shift much of education control and funding back to states, drastically altering the role of the federal government in schools.

The Executive Order

The intent to dismantle ED was confirmed by Executive Order 14242, signed by President Donald Trump on March 20, 2025. This action initiated a strategy of rapid operational changes.

The philosophy driving these changes is rooted in returning educational control to states and parents, eliminating what the administration terms “burdensome regulations.”

The administration acted quickly following the Executive Order. Within 24 hours, the administration announced the massive federal student loan portfolio transfer, setting the tone for aggressive operational shifts.

The swift move to destabilize the department’s core financial functions immediately after the executive order suggests an intent to force operational gridlock, compelling a reorganization before Congress could intervene with comprehensive legislation.

The administration framed these actions as granting “educational freedom and opportunity” and “unshackling” educators, providing a public justification for what critics characterize as the wholesale elimination of federal protection and oversight.

Current Status of ED Dismantling

• On May 22, 2025, Myong J. Joun (U.S. District Judge, Massachusetts) issued a preliminary injunction that blocks ED and the administration from carrying out a mass reduction-in-force (RIF) of nearly 1,400 employees. The judge found that the planned layoffs and reorganization would undermine the Department’s ability to fulfill its statutory obligations.
• The injunction also bars implementation of the March 20, 2025, executive order directing ED to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”
• The administration filed an appeal. On June 6, 2025, the administration asked the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the injunction while the appeal proceeds.
• Meanwhile, the injunction remains in effect; the Department is required to reinstate laid-off employees and halt the reorganization until the litigation resolves.

What Happens Next

• The appeal will proceed in the U.S. Court of Appeals (in this case, likely the 1st Circuit, since the lower court is in Massachusetts). The appeals court will review whether the District Court’s injunction was properly granted.
• The Supreme Court may be asked to intervene—either by granting a stay of the injunction or by ultimately deciding the case. The administration’s June filing with the Supreme Court reflects that possibility.
• If the injunction is upheld on appeal, the Department must continue operating under the status quo (with employees reinstated, etc.). If the injunction is overturned, the administration could resume its reorganization plan (though still subject to other legal and legislative constraints).
• Regardless of the litigation, any attempt to fully abolish or radically restructure the Department would require legislative action by Congress; an executive order alone likely isn’t sufficient to remove the agency entirely or eliminate its statutory obligations.

Why Target the Department of Education?

The administration and supporting conservative policy organizations justify the restructuring through arguments centered on bureaucratic waste, regulatory overreach, and the need for greater local autonomy.

The Local Control Argument

A central goal of the restructuring is to reduce federal oversight and return educational control to state and local governments. The administration stressed that it would “eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly” while continuing to support essential programs for K-12 students, students with special needs, and college student borrowers.

Advocates for the reduction argue that the Department of Education’s increasing intervention has encouraged state education systems to focus primarily on the demands of Washington, instead of responding directly to parents and taxpayers.

This compliance-driven environment is seen as supporting a state bureaucracy that strains the resources of local schools. The proposed alternative seeks to limit the federal role significantly and empower local leaders by ensuring accountability rests with parents and taxpayers.

The Spending Critique

Critics of ED argue that its legacy is one of bureaucratic waste and federal overreach, failing to produce educational improvement despite increased funding.

They point to soaring college costs since the department’s creation, noting that real tuition and fees for in-state students at four-year universities have nearly tripled since 1990. This rapid inflation occurred despite federal spending on student loans rising 328 percent over 30 years.

This focus on the agency’s fiscal failure to curb tuition inflation justifies moving the student loan portfolio to a financial agency, decoupling debt management from educational policy.

The Cultural Policy Angle

Beyond fiscal concerns, the administration pursued targeted cultural policy changes. In February 2025, ED terminated over $600 million in grants that were funding teacher training on ideologies deemed “divisive.”

The administration explicitly targeted materials related to Critical Race Theory (CRT), Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), social justice activism, “anti-racism,” and instruction on white privilege.

The dual strategy of criticizing bureaucratic waste and eliminating grants based on cultural ideology creates a unified justification for eliminating the department, appealing to both fiscal and social conservative bases.

The Blueprint

The administration’s actions are closely aligned with Project 2025, which provided the blueprint for dismantling the department.

These executive actions reinforced simultaneous legislative efforts in the 119th Congress (2025-2026). Multiple bills were introduced aiming for abolition, including H.R. 899, “To terminate the Department of Education,” and H.R. 2691, which sought “To abolish the Department of Education and to provide funding directly to States.”

How the Plan Works

The administration employed three primary strategies in 2025 to achieve its reduction goals rapidly: outsourcing functions through inter-agency agreements, shifting the student loan portfolio, and implementing deep staff reductions.

Outsourcing to Other Agencies

In November 2025, the administration unveiled a major plan to bypass Congress and outsource large pieces of ED’s operational work by establishing six new agreements with other federal agencies.

These moves were executed without Congress’s consent and involved shifting day-to-day operations for congressionally required programs, while retaining only a small staff contingent at ED.

Key operational shifts included:

• K-12 and Postsecondary Education: A significant portion of the work handled by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), including the management of Title I funding (which supports low-income students), was shifted to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). The Office of Postsecondary Education also transferred functions to the DOL.
• Specialized Programs: The Office of Indian Education was moved to the U.S. Department of the Interior. International education programming and foreign language studies transferred to the U.S. Department of State. The Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) program transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

By shifting congressionally required programs using executive agreements, the administration utilized managerial authority to push the legal limits of presidential power to unilaterally reorganize agencies established by law.

The decision to move core education oversight like Title I to the Department of Labor suggests a philosophical prioritization of workforce training and economic utility as the new benchmark for federal educational success, fundamentally separating it from ED’s original focus on educational equity.

The Student Loan Transfer

The most rapid, destabilizing move was the student loan transfer. On March 21, 2025, President Trump announced the immediate transfer of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio, impacting approximately 43 million borrowers, to the Small Business Administration (SBA).

This sudden operational overhaul created immediate failure and legal recourse. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued ED on March 19, 2025, arguing the agency was “effectively breaking the student loan system.”

Federal education officials were accused of eliminating access to Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) plans by removing application forms and secretly instructing loan servicers to halt all processing, jeopardizing millions of public service workers relying on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF).

Lawmakers, including Representative Pressley and Senator Warren, publicly urged the administration to stop any plans to sell the federal student loan portfolio.

Transferring the loan portfolio away from ED transforms federal student debt from an educational support mechanism into a purely financial asset. Housing the loan system in agencies like the SBA or Treasury, which have mandates focused on financial management rather than consumer protection, increases the riskiness of borrowing for students.

Staff Reductions

The ED staff count had already been reduced significantly, dropping from approximately 4,100 to fewer than 2,000 employees before the October 2025 federal government shutdown.

During the shutdown, the administration announced a major government-wide Reduction in Force (RIF), strategically using the immediate budgetary crisis to advance the long-term policy goal of permanent agency reduction.

These cuts targeted the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and, most notably, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which faced a proposed reduction of over 70% of its enforcement staff.

Layoffs specifically targeted staff members who support services for students with disabilities and oversee IDEA funding.

The administration claimed these reductions were part of “streamlining operations and delivering services at a lower administrative cost to the taxpayer.” The strategic deployment of RIFs during the shutdown demonstrated a deliberate move to cripple the agency’s capacity, forcing a permanent staffing reduction.

Table 1: Key Department of Education Functions Targeted for Transfer or Reduction (2025)

The Pushback

Critics, including education unions, civil rights advocates, and Democratic lawmakers, argue that ED dismantling jeopardizes vulnerable student populations and federal mandates for equity.

Impact on Vulnerable Students

The restructuring efforts generated fear regarding the future of foundational education programs. Although the administration’s FY 2025 budget maintained Title I funding at $18.4 billion, policy blueprints proposed converting Title I into a “no-strings-attached formula block grant,” with the long-term goal of eliminating federal funding within ten years.

Education advocates warned that eliminating federal Title I funding would be catastrophic, leading to the loss of more than 180,000 teacher positions nationwide and negatively affecting 2.8 million vulnerable students.

These funds are considered vital for providing necessary support, including teachers and tutors, for low-income students.

The Special Education Fight

A major policy dispute centers on funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Policy proposals recommend converting IDEA funding into “no-strings” formula grants, distributed directly to local school districts rather than flowing through state education agencies (SEAs).

Bypassing state agencies eliminates their funding and capacity to monitor and support special education services. Critics warned that removing accountability “strings” gives districts broad flexibility but eliminates federal enforcement, potentially stripping mandated protections for the nation’s 7.5 million disabled children.

Teachers expressed concern that such a disaster would strip vital services such as job-skills training for older students.

Civil Rights Enforcement

The proposed cuts to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforcement staff drastically reduces the federal government’s capacity to investigate discrimination and compel schools to comply with federal civil rights laws.

If the RIF targeting over 70% of OCR staff had taken effect, federal monitoring capabilities would have been severely curtailed.

This action is viewed as part of a larger trend. The concurrent reduction of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, where investigative tools have been curtailed, suggests a coordinated, systemic retreat from federal civil rights intervention across the education and justice systems.

The targeted elimination of staff dedicated to OCR and special education funding suggests that the administration categorizes the enforcement of civil rights and protections for marginalized students as expendable bureaucratic overreach, rather than a necessary federal function for ensuring equity.

Student Loan Chaos

The operational halt resulting from the loan portfolio transfer created immediate financial instability. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) sued ED in March 2025 over the freezing of Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) systems.

AFT President Randi Weingarten contended that the administration seemed “intent on making life harder for working people,” calling the decision to block access to IDR and PSLF “illegal and immoral.”

Educators stated that the aggressive restructuring created “absolute chaos and fear” among those who depend on financial support to attend college or continue in public service roles. The rapid dismantling of the agency’s financial infrastructure directly caused operational harm to millions of citizens relying on these debt relief programs.

Legal and Political Challenges

Stakeholders challenged the restructuring through intense political advocacy, legal action, and successful legislative efforts to halt personnel cuts.

Union Resistance

Education unions maintained strong opposition to the elimination of ED. AFT members emphasized that while they support local control, they embrace the necessity of the federal role in protecting vulnerable students and oppose abolishing the department, calling the move “unpopular but illegal.”

Local teachers testified that dismantling ED would put “in jeopardy critical funding for students with disabilities and Title I support systems” and lead to the loss of vital support personnel like counselors and social workers.

National Education Association (NEA) President Becky Pringle stated that the administration’s intent to gut special education services turns its back on 7.5 million children.

Additionally, the NEA and the ACLU filed a lawsuit in March 2025 to challenge ED’s “Dear Colleague” letter, which threatened to withhold federal funds from public schools engaging in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, arguing the letter imposed unlawful restrictions on educators.

Court Challenges

The strategic use of Reductions in Force (RIFs) during the government shutdown was immediately challenged in court by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and other national labor unions.

These lawsuits argued that the personnel cuts constituted an unlawful overstep of executive managerial authority.

The Congressional Override

A crucial intervention occurred in November 2025 when President Trump signed a Continuing Resolution (CR) to reopen the federal government and fund ED through January 30, 2026.

This legislative measure rescinded all RIFs issued since October 10 and prohibited the agency from issuing additional RIFs through January 30, 2026. The CR required ED to provide back pay for all furloughed employees.

The successful legal challenges followed by the legislative override demonstrated the critical role of the judiciary and Congress in temporarily restraining executive efforts aimed at crippling the enforcement capacity of ED.

Despite this, the administration’s long-term intention was reinforced by the proposed 16 percent budget cut for ED in FY 2026.

Table 2: Policy Changes vs. Stakeholder Concerns

What It All Means

A New Philosophy

The entire restructuring effort constitutes a fundamental redefinition of the federal government’s role in education.

By transferring K-12 and postsecondary operations to the Department of Labor, the administration signaled a shift in philosophical priority toward economic utility and workforce readiness, using these as the primary metrics for educational success, rather than focusing on equity and access.

This trajectory is further supported by the administration’s focus for the FY 2025 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) grant competition, which prioritizes the expansion of artificial intelligence (AI), accreditation reform, and short-term postsecondary programs.

If the offices responsible for civil rights enforcement and poverty relief programs are eliminated or outsourced, the core mission of the federal education apparatus pivots away from social equity toward economic competitiveness and streamlined job training.

Executive Power Questions

The reliance on Executive Orders, inter-agency agreements, and the strategic use of RIFs during a shutdown serves as a legal mechanism to achieve the goals of legislative abolition without needing explicit Congressional approval.

The Department of Education was established by Congressional statute. Shifting congressionally-mandated functions, such as Title I, outside the ED framework via executive action bypasses the legislative checks, thereby concentrating power in the Executive Branch to unilaterally redefine and reorganize federal priorities.

Operational Reality

The immediate operational disruption caused by the student loan transfer and the resulting lawsuits against personnel cuts and policy directives highlight the significant logistical and legal dangers inherent in rapid bureaucratic restructuring.

Although the administration characterized the reductions as a “lawful and orderly transition,” the reality through November 2025 involved operational failure and robust legal challenges.

ED manages billions in funds and complex compliance mandates, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Clery Act. The failure to ensure continuity during the student loan transfer suggests that the priority was speed over stability, forcing citizens and advocacy groups to seek judicial intervention to preserve essential federal services.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.