Trump Initiates Dismantling of Department of Education, Assuring Continuity of Key Programs
Former President Donald Trump has taken the first steps to dismantle the Department of Education, fulfilling a long-standing campaign promise to reduce the federal government’s role in education and return control to state and local entities. An executive order signed by Trump directs the Education Secretary to initiate the shutdown process, a move that has sparked both celebration among proponents of local control and concern among those who fear the loss of vital federal support for students and civil rights protections.
Despite the sweeping nature of the executive order, assurances are being made that key programs and funding mechanisms, including student loans, Pell Grants, Title I funding for disadvantaged students, and civil rights enforcement, will continue to operate, at least in the short term. Sarah Parshall Perry, a top legal expert at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, clarified the situation in an interview with Fox News Digital. Perry, who has been in contact with White House stakeholders, emphasized that the administration intends to maintain these programs until they can be systematically transferred to other federal agencies through congressional action.
The process of dismantling the Department of Education will be a lengthy and complex undertaking, requiring careful coordination between the executive branch and Congress. The executive order itself is merely the initial step in what Perry describes as a "very long, consistent, labor-intensive process." While the administration aims to reduce the department’s footprint, it also recognizes the need to ensure a smooth transition and avoid disruptions to critical services.
According to Perry, the administration’s immediate focus is on streamlining the department’s operations and eliminating initiatives deemed to be outside the scope of its core mission. This includes curtailing programs related to critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which aligns with Trump’s previous executive orders targeting these areas.
However, the core functions of the department, such as administering federal financial aid programs and enforcing civil rights laws, will remain in place for the time being. Perry explained that these responsibilities cannot be easily transferred to other agencies without congressional approval.
One potential scenario outlined by Perry involves shifting civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice, while student loan processes could be managed by the Department of the Treasury. This would require Congress to pass legislation authorizing these transfers and providing the necessary resources to the receiving agencies.
The prospect of dismantling the Department of Education has raised concerns about the potential impact on students, schools, and communities. Some fear that the loss of federal funding and oversight could lead to budget shortfalls, school closures, and a weakening of civil rights protections.
However, Perry argues that these fears are largely unfounded. She points out that federal taxpayer spending accounts for less than 10% of per-pupil funding in most states, with the remaining amount split between local and state taxpayers. Therefore, she contends that downsizing the Department of Education would not necessarily result in significant budget cuts for schools.
Furthermore, Perry emphasizes that the administration intends to maintain federal oversight of key areas, such as student loans, civil rights laws, and Title I funding. She suggests that these programs could be "divested" from the Department of Education, meaning that the department’s role in administering them could be reduced or transferred to other agencies, while federal oversight and enforcement continue.
The Department of Education was established in 1979 with the goal of improving education across the country. Since then, its budget has grown significantly, from approximately $14 billion to $268 billion in Fiscal Year 2024. This growth has been accompanied by an expansion of the department’s responsibilities, including administering federal student loan programs, enforcing civil rights laws, and providing funding for various educational initiatives.
Prior to the establishment of the Department of Education, federal student loans were administered through the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, which involved the federal government guaranteeing loans provided by banks and non-profit lenders to students.
Proponents of dismantling the Department of Education argue that it has become too large and bureaucratic, and that it has overstepped its authority by imposing federal mandates on state and local schools. They believe that returning control of education to state and local entities will lead to greater innovation and responsiveness to the needs of students and communities. They advocate for school choice, allowing parents to use public funds to send their children to private schools or charter schools.
Critics, however, warn that dismantling the department could have negative consequences for students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. They argue that federal funding and oversight are essential for ensuring equal access to education and protecting the rights of all students.
The debate over the future of the Department of Education is likely to continue as the administration moves forward with its plan to dismantle the agency. The outcome will have a significant impact on the landscape of education in the United States for years to come.
Perry emphasizes the importance of strengthening education at the state and local levels, while ensuring continued federal oversight of crucial areas. "So the federal government is always going to have a responsibility to enforce, apply, and sort of interpret and send these particular protections and their financial associations," she said.
Ultimately, Trump’s executive order marks a significant shift in the federal government’s role in education. While the full implications of this move remain to be seen, it is clear that the debate over the appropriate balance between federal and local control of education will continue to be a central issue in American politics. The long-term effects on students, schools, and the overall education system will be closely watched by stakeholders across the country.
