In September 2023, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign outlined ten principles aimed at reforming the U.S. education system, with a central focus on closing the Department of Education (DOE) in Washington, D.C. Trump’s strategy includes pushing for a complete transfer of educational responsibilities back to the individual states. Despite his vow to dismantle this federal agency, he appointed Linda McMahon as secretary of education, which raises questions about his commitment to eliminating the department. In addition, Trump plans to advocate for universal school choice, reverse the “gender-affirming” care practices in schools, and leverage federal funding to succeed in his goal of ending Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in educational systems.
However, the feasibility of closing the DOE is complex, as it was established by an act of Congress in 1979 and cannot be simply dissolved by presidential order. Neal McCluskey, the director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Education Freedom, indicated that congressional support is crucial, particularly under the existing Senate filibuster rules. It appears unlikely that sufficient bipartisan consensus exists to close the department, as McCluskey noted the necessity of 60 votes in the Senate, which likely cannot be achieved without Democratic cooperation. Although the DOE is the smallest federal cabinet agency with approximately 4,100 employees, its abolition does not seem imminent. Instead, McCluskey suggests that there might be bipartisan support for downsizing the department by redistributing some of its functions to other federal agencies.
Trump’s educational reform plans also depend on the potential restructuring of federal funding and its distribution. States primarily fund public and higher education, while the federal government contributes through various programs. McCluskey proposes that essential roles currently held by the DOE could be reassigned to other federal agencies, such as the Department of Justice for handling civil rights complaints, and the U.S. Treasury for managing higher education financial aid. He predicts substantial savings if state agencies oversee educational programs instead of both state and federal bureaucracies simultaneously. Additionally, there could be ways for Trump to impose conditions on federal funding to discourage states from maintaining DEI and CRT policies.
In light of these impending changes, Congress is anticipated to prioritize a review of the DOE in the upcoming legislative session. Recently, Senator Mike Rounds introduced the “Returning Education to Our States Act,” aimed at eliminating the DOE and redistributing its essential functions. Rounds emphasizes the significant budget increase the department has undergone over the last 45 years, juxtaposed with declines in student test scores. Following Rounds, Representative Barry Moore also proposed similar legislation aimed at dismantling the department and funneling its resources directly to states. The sentiment among many Republican legislators is that local control of education is paramount, though more significant overhaul still remains to be seen.
Amid the discussion about reforms, it’s crucial to analyze how Trump’s administration would potentially alter the policies introduced during Biden’s presidency, particularly concerning DEI initiatives and student loan forgiveness. Observations from various stakeholders indicate a strong desire for educational reform that emphasizes downsizing federal involvement, given the current public dissatisfaction with education outcomes. Eduacational organizations express anticipation of many programs being moved away from the DOE, reducing its scope of influence significantly. Furthermore, it appears Trump may utilize executive power to eliminate DEI and CRT from federally funded programs, building on similar actions taken during his previous administration without substantial legal challenges.
The reaction from educators, particularly those in teacher unions, signals apprehension amid potential changes. Randi Weingarten, the President of the American Federation of Teachers, expressed a mix of hope and skepticism regarding McMahon’s appointment and the proposed transformations in education policy under Trump. While endorsing the push for project-based learning and vocational training as a means to enhance educational relevance and engagement, Weingarten raised concerns about the implications of closing the DOE, especially its impact on essential federal funding that supports vulnerable populations, including students with disabilities and first-generation college attendees. With no formal response from the Department of Education yet, the future trajectory and legitimacy of these reforms remain uncertain as the country anticipates the incoming administration’s larger strategies on education.