Can Trump Actually Abolish the Department of Education? Here’s What’s at Stake
The idea of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) has been a recurring theme in conservative politics for decades. When former President Donald Trump floated the possibility of eliminating the agency through an executive order, it reignited debates about federal oversight of education. But how much power does a president really have to gut a Cabinet-level department? Let’s unpack the practical implications, the stakeholders pushing for this move, and why the threat—even if symbolic—could reshape American education.
The Department of Education’s Role: Why It’s a Target
Established in 1979, the DoE oversees federal funding for K-12 schools and higher education, enforces civil rights laws in educational settings, and collects data on student performance. Critics argue the agency has overstepped its original mandate, imposing “one-size-fits-all” policies on states and schools. Conservatives, in particular, view the DoE as a symbol of federal overreach, arguing that education decisions should reside with local governments and parents.
Trump’s rhetoric about abolishing the department aligns with this philosophy. During his 2016 campaign, he called the DoE “a massive bureaucracy that doesn’t serve students or parents well.” While his administration never succeeded in eliminating the agency, it did take steps to reduce its influence, such as slashing budgets for public school programs and expanding funding for charter schools.
Executive Orders vs. Reality: What a President Can (and Can’t) Do
Presidents can’t unilaterally abolish federal agencies created by Congress. The DoE was established through legislation, meaning only Congress could legally dismantle it. An executive order to “terminate” the department would face immediate legal challenges and likely fail. So why propose it?
Such a move would primarily serve as a political statement—a way to rally supporters who oppose federal involvement in education. However, Trump could still weaken the DoE indirectly. For example:
– Budget Cuts: A president can propose drastic funding reductions, forcing the department to scale back programs. During Trump’s term, his budgets proposed cutting DoE funding by up to 13%, targeting initiatives like after-school programs and teacher training.
– Leadership Appointments: By installing officials hostile to the agency’s mission, a president could slow enforcement of regulations or redirect priorities. Betsy DeVos, Trump’s education secretary, famously redirected resources toward school choice initiatives while rolling back Obama-era guidelines on campus sexual assault and student loans.
– Deregulation: The DoE issues rules on everything from student loans to disability accommodations. A president could order the agency to halt new regulations or repeal existing ones, creating uncertainty for schools and students.
In short, while Trump can’t erase the DoE with a pen stroke, he could cripple its operations—a strategy some allies argue would achieve similar results.
Who’s Pushing to Dismantle the DoE—and Why?
The movement to abolish the DoE isn’t new, but it’s gained momentum in recent years thanks to well-funded advocacy groups and libertarian-leaning politicians. Key players include:
1. Conservative Think Tanks: Organizations like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute have long argued that the DoE duplicates state-level efforts and stifles innovation. They advocate for transferring authority to states, framing it as a win for “parental rights” and local control.
2. School Choice Advocates: Many supporters of charter schools and voucher programs see the DoE as an obstacle to privatizing education. Eliminating the department could remove federal oversight, allowing states to divert public funds to private institutions with fewer restrictions.
3. Limited-Government Republicans: Figures like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) have introduced bills to abolish the DoE, arguing it’s unconstitutional. While these efforts haven’t gained traction in Congress, they keep the idea alive in political discourse.
Notably, some religious groups also back defunding the DoE, believing it would reduce federal interference in faith-based schools.
The Risks of Diminishing Federal Oversight
Critics warn that gutting the DoE would disproportionately harm vulnerable students. The department enforces Title IX (prohibiting sex discrimination), ensures disability accommodations under IDEA, and investigates civil rights complaints. Without a federal watchdog, states might ignore inequities in school funding or student treatment.
Moreover, the DoE administers Pell Grants and federal student loans. While the system is flawed, dismantling it without a replacement could leave millions of low-income students without access to higher education. Even some conservatives acknowledge the logistical nightmare of abruptly ending these programs.
The Bottom Line: Symbolism vs. Substance
Trump’s executive order threat is largely symbolic—a nod to his base rather than a viable policy. However, the conversation itself has consequences. By normalizing the idea of defunding or dismantling the DoE, critics argue, politicians could gradually erode public support for federal education programs.
The real damage lies in prolonged budget cuts, deregulation, and leadership that undermines the department’s mission. For example, DeVos’s tenure saw reduced enforcement of civil rights violations and student loan protections, changes that had tangible effects on schools and borrowers.
Ultimately, the fight over the DoE reflects deeper ideological divides: Should education be a federal responsibility or a state-led endeavor? While the department’s fate hinges on Congress, the ongoing debate ensures that its role—and vulnerabilities—will remain in the spotlight long after the next election cycle.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Can Trump Actually Abolish the Department of Education