Alert

Trump on Education: When ‘Dismantle’ Doesn’t Mean Dismantle and Sending Education Back to the States

March 28, 2025

One of Donald Trump’s most controversial campaign promises was his proposal to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (Department) and, in his words, send “education back to the states.” At the time, the idea was met with skepticism and viewed by many as unlikely to gain traction. However, on March 20, he took a formal step toward that controversial goal by signing an executive order to begin dismantling the Department.

History Repeating Itself

The executive order marks the latest chapter in a long history of efforts to dismantle the agency, which has faced calls for elimination since its inception. The Department was created in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, only to come under immediate scrutiny the following year when Ronald Reagan campaigned on a promise to abolish it. The shift in presidential priorities was a case of political déjà vu. An earlier version of the Department was established in 1867, but Congress downgraded it to the Office of Education just one year later amid concerns about federal overreach and a desire to maintain local control. Interestingly, many of the same arguments that led to the Department’s demotion in the 1800s continue to echo in today’s political discourse, namely that a centralized education agency is unnecessary, infringes on state rights, and is shaped by ideological agendas (now often labeled as “wokeness” or “DEI”).

What the Order Does (and Doesn’t) Say

While the executive order signals intent, it stops short of explicitly mandating the Department’s closure. It does not direct Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to shut down the agency outright. Instead, it instructs her to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the Department to the fullest extent permitted by law. Although the President has offered public assurance that core federal education programs such as Pell Grants (for undergraduate students with exceptional financial need), Title I funding (to states and school districts to support low-income students), and support for students with disabilities will be preserved and transferred to other agencies, the executive order itself makes no mention of these safeguards.

In fact, the order is just as notable for what it does not say. Fully dismantling the Department and reallocating its core functions would almost certainly require congressional action – a difficult prospect given the Republicans’ slim majority. Even if such legislation were to pass, Congress would face the daunting task of unwinding decades of legal authority and reassigning deeply embedded responsibilities across the federal bureaucracy. In other words, eliminating the Department isn’t as simple as shuttering an office in Washington; it would require a sweeping realignment of oversight, funding, and accountability mechanisms.

Will Federal Financial Aid be Impacted?

A major component of the executive order requires the Department to ensure that all funding allocations strictly comply with federal law and administration policy. In particular, the order mandates that programs receiving federal funds must eliminate what it describes as “illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” or any programming associated with “gender ideology.” The language has sparked concern among educational institutions, many of which rely heavily on federal aid and maintain initiatives under these categories.

At the same time, the Department’s workforce has already been reduced by half, raising serious concerns about its ability to manage the vast and complex machinery of federal student aid. Although officials have stated that essential services such as FAFSA (Free Application for Federal Student Aid) processing and loan servicing will not be directly affected, doubts persist about the long-term viability of these assurances. Dismantling a federal agency while expecting seamless continuity of programs and benefits is widely viewed as a logistical and administrative challenge that could lead to service disruptions, delays, and confusion for students and families across the country.

What Does “Returning Education to the States” Really Mean?

Beyond the mechanics and impact of dismantling the Department, the order revives a long-standing debate: what does sending control of education back to the states actually mean in practice? From funding structures to civil rights enforcement and protections for vulnerable students, the effects of such a shift would ripple across every level of the education system. Here’s a closer look at what those changes could entail.

Transfer of Federal Programs. The Department is currently responsible for administering and enforcing numerous federal statutes.  While President Trump has pledged continued funding for Pell Grants, Title I funding, and programs for students with disabilities, merely shifting oversight to agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Justice would not, in itself, complete the transition. Congress would need to determine how these programs are restructured and how responsibilities are delegated.

Even with federal restructuring, the operational burden could ultimately fall on the states. In practice, each state would likely need to establish or expand systems for distributing funds, defining program eligibility, and monitoring compliance. Some states may be well-equipped to absorb these responsibilities, while others – particularly those with limited administrative capacity – could face significant challenges in maintaining the service levels previously supported by federal infrastructure and coordination.

Civil Rights Enforcement. One of the most significant concerns with shifting control to the states is the potential erosion of civil rights protections in education. The Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) currently enforces federal prohibitions against discrimination in education programs that receive federal funding. This includes protections based on race, national origin, sex, disability, age, religion, and health information privacy.

If OCR’s role is reduced or eliminated, states would be tasked with building or expanding their own civil rights enforcement systems. This could lead to wide disparities across the country. Some states might choose to invest in robust enforcement mechanisms, while others may lack the political will or capacity to offer adequate protections, leaving vulnerable students with limited avenues for redress.

Even without a full-scale dismantling, recent developments have strained OCR’s capacity. The agency is legally required to respond promptly to discrimination complaints, but recent layoffs have significantly weakened its operations. As of March 2025, more than half of OCR’s regional offices (including those in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, and San Francisco) face closures or major staffing reductions, raising serious concerns about delays and diminished enforcement capabilities.

Impact on Students with Disabilities. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is among the most complex and consequential statutes administered by the Department. Enacted to guarantee students with disabilities a free and appropriate public education, IDEA sets out federal standards for special education services and authorizes both formula and discretionary grants to states, school systems, and other educational institutions.

Currently, the Department issues implementing regulations, monitors compliance, and conditions federal funding on adherence to these rules. If IDEA’s administration is transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services – or directly to the states – state education agencies would assume full responsibility for compliance, oversight, and dispute resolution.

This shift could result in significant variation in how IDEA is interpreted and enforced across the country. Without centralized federal guidance, states may diverge in their implementation, creating inconsistency and potential legal conflicts. Moreover, it remains unclear how funding formulas and monitoring mechanisms would be adapted under a decentralized system. Educational institutions would still be required to comply with IDEA to receive federal funds, but enforcement would become more complex and potentially fragmented.

Looking Ahead: A Fragmented Future for U.S. Education?

Returning education to the states is not merely a rollback of federal bureaucracy; it represents a sweeping transformation in how education is governed in the United States. While proponents argue that local control will foster innovation and responsiveness, practical implementation of these changes presents a complex challenge.

This transition raises difficult questions: How will civil rights be protected? How will funding remain equitable? How will national standards be maintained? And perhaps most importantly, how can a system of 50 separate state authorities ensure that every child – regardless of geography, income, or ability – has access to a high-quality, equitable education? As the administration moves forward with its plan, these questions demand careful scrutiny.