Trump’s plan to end the Department of Education: Bold reform or risky gamble?

President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping executive order aimed at closing the Department of Education and returning authority over education policy and funding to state and local governments. The move, framed as an effort to “empower parents, teachers, and communities,” challenges the longstanding role of the federal government in education, arguing that decades of federal oversight have failed to improve student outcomes.

The executive order asserts that the Department of Education, created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, has contributed to bureaucratic inefficiencies without directly improving academic performance. With American reading and math scores at historic lows, the administration contends that states and local communities are better equipped to tailor education policies to meet students’ needs. The order also calls for restructuring federal education funding, ensuring that resources reach students without what it describes as unnecessary federal intervention.

Why Does Trump Want to Close the Department of Education?

The Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the Department of Education is rooted in longstanding conservative arguments against federal control over schooling. Critics of federal oversight argue that the centralization of education policy has led to bloated bureaucracy, reduced parental influence, and declining student performance.

Trump’s executive order highlights that the federal government spent nearly $200 billion in COVID-19 relief funding for schools, on top of the annual $60 billion federal education budget. Despite these significant expenditures, national assessments continue to show poor academic performance, particularly in reading and mathematics.

The administration also draws attention to the department’s large student loan portfolio, which amounts to more than $1.6 trillion. By managing this vast financial system with fewer than 1,500 employees in its Office of Federal Student Aid, the department is likened to a bank—one that Trump argues is ill-equipped to handle such responsibilities. The administration insists that these functions should be returned to entities with expertise in financial services, rather than being managed by a government agency.

How Would Education Funding Change Under This Plan?

A primary concern surrounding the closure of the Department of Education is the fate of federal funding for schools, particularly those that serve low-income and special needs students. Trump’s order assures that education funding will not be cut but will be distributed directly to states with fewer bureaucratic hurdles.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon has emphasized that essential programs for K-12 students, special needs education, and college financial aid will remain intact. The administration argues that by eliminating bureaucratic overhead, more resources can reach schools and students directly. However, critics warn that without federal oversight, disparities in education funding between states could widen, potentially exacerbating inequalities in access to quality education.

How Would States Adapt to the Absence of the Department of Education?

If Congress approves the administration’s plan, states would assume full control over curriculum standards, funding distribution, and school accountability measures. This would mark a significant departure from decades of federally influenced education policies, including initiatives such as No Child Left Behind and Common Core.

The transition would likely result in greater variability in education policies across states. While some states may embrace school choice programs, including charter schools and voucher systems, others may continue prioritizing public school funding. Without federal mandates, state governments would have greater flexibility in determining teacher certification requirements, standardized testing policies, and curriculum guidelines.

What Are the Key Arguments for and Against Dismantling the Department of Education?

Supporters of the plan argue that education policy should be controlled at the state and local levels, allowing for more tailored and effective solutions. Federal oversight, they claim, has not yielded better student outcomes despite significant spending. Eliminating bureaucratic inefficiencies would free up funds to directly support students and teachers. States would be better positioned to innovate and experiment with different education models without federal mandates dictating policies.

Critics, however, warn that federal oversight is necessary to ensure equal access to quality education across all states, particularly for disadvantaged students. Removing federal involvement, they argue, could lead to increased disparities in education funding and academic achievement. Programs such as Title I funding for low-income schools and IDEA funding for special education could face challenges in implementation. Without federal regulations, states could also weaken protections against discrimination in education, potentially rolling back civil rights protections for marginalized student groups.

Could This Move Survive Legal and Legislative Challenges?

The closure of the Department of Education cannot be executed unilaterally through an executive order. Congress, which created the department in 1979, would need to pass legislation to dismantle it. Given that previous attempts to abolish the department have failed due to bipartisan opposition, the current proposal is expected to face significant resistance from both Democratic lawmakers and some moderate Republicans.

Legal experts have also raised concerns about whether certain federal education responsibilities, such as civil rights protections and special education funding, could be fully transferred to states without violating existing laws. The administration has pledged to work through Congress to ensure a “lawful and orderly transition,” but whether the plan gains enough support remains uncertain.

What Would Be the Long-Term Impact on Education?

If the Department of Education were to be dismantled, the American education system would undergo one of the most significant transformations in modern history. While supporters believe this shift would lead to greater efficiency and innovation, opponents fear it could weaken national standards and create disparities in educational opportunities.

The move reflects a broader ideological debate about the role of federal versus state government in shaping public policy. Whether Trump’s proposal succeeds or not, it is likely to spark renewed discussions on the effectiveness of federal education policies and the best ways to improve student outcomes in the years ahead.