Does Trump’s Executive Order to Terminate the Dept of Education Hold Weight?
When former President Donald Trump announced an executive order aimed at dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (DoE), it sparked immediate debate. Supporters hailed it as a long-overdue move to shrink federal overreach, while critics warned of chaos for public schools and vulnerable students. But how much real power does this executive action hold? What tangible harm could it inflict on the DoE, and who stands behind this controversial idea? Let’s unpack the complexities.
The Limits of Executive Power
First, a reality check: Eliminating a federal department isn’t as simple as signing a piece of paper. The DoE was established by Congress in 1979 through the Department of Education Organization Act. To abolish it, Congress would need to pass legislation repealing that law—a steep hurdle, even with political allies in power. Trump’s executive order, therefore, lacks the legal authority to unilaterally erase the department.
But while Trump can’t wipe the DoE off the books overnight, he can weaken its influence through administrative maneuvers. For example, a president could:
– Starve it of funding: Slashing budgets for DoE programs, particularly those tied to civil rights enforcement or student aid.
– Appoint hostile leadership: Nominating officials who undermine the department’s mission or redirect resources away from core responsibilities.
– Deregulate aggressively: Rolling back federal guidelines on issues like campus sexual assault, special education, or student loan protections.
These tactics wouldn’t “terminate” the DoE in name, but they could cripple its ability to function as intended.
Where the Damage Could Hit Hardest
The DoE’s annual budget exceeds $70 billion, much of which flows to states for K-12 programs, Pell Grants, and support for low-income students. If a president prioritizes defunding the department, here’s where the pain might land:
1. Title I Funding: This program directs billions to schools serving low-income communities. Cuts here would disproportionately harm marginalized students already struggling with resource gaps.
2. Special Education: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), enforced by the DoE, guarantees services for over 7 million students. Weakening oversight could leave states under less pressure to comply.
3. Civil Rights Protections: The DoE’s Office for Civil Rights investigates discrimination based on race, gender, or disability. Reducing its capacity might silence victims of inequity.
4. Student Loans: While federal loans are managed separately, the DoE oversees repayment plans and borrower defenses. Eroding these safeguards could leave millions in deeper debt.
Critics argue that such moves would destabilize public education and deepen inequities. As former Education Secretary Arne Duncan tweeted, “Dismantling the DoE isn’t about small government—it’s about abandoning our commitment to kids.”
Who’s Pushing for the DoE’s Demise—and Why?
The call to abolish the DoE isn’t new. It’s a talking point that resurfaces among conservative circles every few decades, rooted in two main ideologies:
1. States’ Rights Advocates: Groups like the Heritage Foundation argue that education should be a local issue, free from federal “bureaucratic meddling.” They claim states are better equipped to tailor policies to their communities.
2. School Choice Champions: Some conservatives see the DoE as an obstacle to privatizing education. By dismantling it, they could accelerate voucher programs and charter school expansion, redirecting public funds to private institutions.
Notably, Trump’s 2016 campaign embraced both these angles. His allies, including Secretary Betsy DeVos, openly criticized the DoE’s role, framing it as a bloated regulator stifling innovation. DeVos once remarked, “The DoE is a joke… a dead end.”
However, the movement also draws support from libertarian-leaning voters and activists who view federal involvement in schools as unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment, which reserves non-delegated powers to the states, is often cited as justification.
The Symbolic vs. Practical Battle
Even if Trump’s executive order can’t legally abolish the DoE, its symbolic impact matters. By reigniting the debate over the department’s existence, the order energizes a base that views “draining the swamp” as a moral imperative. It also pressures Congress to consider piecemeal cuts or policy shifts that align with the administration’s goals.
Moreover, the rhetoric alone can have consequences. Uncertainty about the DoE’s future may deter talented professionals from joining its ranks or discourage states from collaborating on federal initiatives. Over time, this erosion of trust and expertise could degrade the department’s effectiveness.
The Road Ahead
The push to terminate the DoE faces fierce resistance. Teachers’ unions, civil rights organizations, and Democratic lawmakers unanimously oppose it, arguing that federal oversight ensures baseline protections for all students. Meanwhile, legal experts emphasize that without congressional approval, the department’s structure remains intact.
Yet the threat isn’t trivial. A sustained campaign to underfund and understaff the DoE could leave it a hollow shell—technically existing but practically powerless. For advocates of public education, the challenge is twofold: defending the department’s role in safeguarding equity while acknowledging legitimate critiques of its efficiency.
In the end, Trump’s executive order may lack the teeth to deliver a killing blow, but it’s a stark reminder of how administrative actions can reshape institutions—one budget cut or deregulatory step at a time. Whether this strategy succeeds depends less on legal technicalities and more on who holds the reins of power in the years to come.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Does Trump’s Executive Order to Terminate the Dept of Education Hold Weight