What Would Happen If the U.S. Department of Education Were Eliminated Under Trump?
Imagine walking into a classroom where resources, access, and educational opportunities look entirely different depending on the state’s borders. For years, the U.S. Department of Education has acted as a central hub, coordinating standards and funding across the nation to ensure some level of equity.
Now, with former President Donald Trump advocating for its dismantling, the conversation has turned speculative yet urgent. What would it mean for the nation’s schools, students, and broader educational landscape if the Department of Education ceased to exist?
This blog post aims to answer your questions while illustrating the potential consequences with clarity and reflection. We’ll look at the history of the department, the reasons behind its possible elimination, and what experts, like Miguel Cardona, have to say about the risks involved.
Why Does the U.S. Department of Education Matter?
The Department of Education, established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, was created to collect data, enforce federal education funding, and ensure equal access to education. Today, it plays an integral role in managing programs like:
- Federal student loans for college and universities,
- Special education programs for children with disabilities,
- Title I funding that supports low-income schools.
These roles may not sound glamorous, but they shape the lives of millions. Here’s an example to consider: Imagine a student with a learning disability attending a low-income school in rural Alabama. Without support from federal programs, how might that student’s educational opportunities shift if decisions are left solely to state governance?
Why Does Trump Want to Eliminate the Department of Education?
During his presidency, Donald Trump consistently labeled the Department of Education as an example of “federal overreach.” He tied the agency to cultural wars, claiming it perpetuated educational “indoctrination” and wasted taxpayer dollars. On the campaign trail, Trump emphasized returning control of education to states and local governments, stating, “We will drain the government education swamp.”
For Trump, eliminating the department aligns with his broader vision of reducing federal intervention. His plan, however, involves more than rhetoric. It includes practical steps, such as drafting executive orders and requiring Congress to pass legislation to dissolve the department.
This wasn’t the first time he tried. During his first term, he proposed merging the Department of Education with the Department of Labor—a suggestion that failed to gain traction, even with a Republican-controlled Congress.
What Happens Next?
Currently, the Trump administration is drafting an order to begin the department’s elimination. Once the order is finalized, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona (or his replacement, if applicable) could be tasked with creating a plan to downsize the department through executive actions. However, as legal and historical precedents show, closing the department outright would still require Congress’s approval—a significant challenge given bipartisan resistance to such proposals.
Interestingly, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has also joined the conversation by focusing on cutting federal programs and reshaping departmental structures across government agencies. This alignment has only fueled speculation about a coordinated attempt to dramatically reduce the federal role in education.
What Could the Elimination Look Like?
If the Department of Education is dismantled, programs and funding may be redistributed to states or other federal agencies. This means states could have significant autonomy in deciding how to allocate resources and establish educational priorities. But what would that actually mean for students and families?
1. Funding Inequities Could Worsen
Federal funding represents about 10% of public-school budgets. While states and local governments provide the bulk of education dollars, the federal contribution often serves as a lifeline for low-income and rural schools. Programs like Title I and special education funding, which predate the department’s establishment, could theoretically shift to other agencies—or disappear altogether. The end result? Students in well-funded districts thrive while students in underfunded areas fall further behind.
2. Unequal Standards for Education
Currently, the Department of Education helps set standards for equitable education nationwide. Without a centralized body, each state would determine its own policies, potentially leading to stark disparities. For instance, access to resources for students with disabilities might differ drastically from state to state. Some might choose to emphasize STEM education while others focus on liberal arts—creating inconsistencies in what students can achieve based solely on geography.
3. Reduced Oversight on Equity
The federal department holds schools accountable for ensuring equal access and addressing discrimination. Without this oversight, marginalized groups could face greater challenges. Students of color, children with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations may lose protections that aim to level the educational playing field.
4. Higher Education Could Face Turmoil
The Department of Education isn’t just about K–12 education. It oversees student loans and Pell Grants, which make college accessible to millions. Outsourcing these responsibilities to private entities or other federal departments might disrupt higher education funding and accessibility. How would students from low- and middle-income families cope without the safety net of federal support?
5. A Possible Return to Pre-1979 Practices
Before the department existed, functions like student aid and special education funding were managed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Critics argue that dismantling the Department of Education may shift us back to this fragmented model—one ill-suited to addressing the complexities of modern education systems.
What Are Experts Saying?
Former Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona has voiced strong opposition to this potential elimination. Reflecting on his time in office, Cardona emphasized, “Protecting the federal Department of Education is protecting the rights and opportunities of students. Otherwise, systems will look totally different from one state to another. Not everyone will have the same chance to succeed.”
This disparity reflects the critical role central agencies play in maintaining fairness across socioeconomic and racial divides.
Supporters of the department’s elimination, like Elon Musk, argue that state control could foster innovation and reduce bureaucratic inefficiency. “We’ll succeed in cutting down waste,” Musk said recently on his platform, X. But this raises the question—at what broader cost?
Moving Forward
The debate over the Department of Education’s future encapsulates a larger conversation about the role of federal government in shaping public policy. While Trump’s ambitions to dismantle it align with his broader objectives of decentralization, the consequences for students, families, and educators could be profound.
For now, one thing remains certain—this discussion is far from over. Stakeholders on both sides must prepare to engage in meaningful dialogue, understanding the balance between autonomy, equity, and opportunity in America’s education system.
FAQs About the Future of Federal Education
Would all programs shut down immediately?
No. Programs like Title I could be redistributed to other agencies or states. However, transitions like this often meet logistical and political roadblocks, slowing progress considerably.
Is it even possible to eliminate the Department of Education?
Technically, yes. But Congress would need to pass legislation, which has historically been unsuccessful due to bipartisan support for the department’s fundamental functions.
Could some states benefit from eliminating the department?
Possibly. States that already invest heavily in education may find more autonomy advantageous. However, other states would struggle to independently maintain funding levels for struggling schools.
