Can Trump Actually Dismantle the Department of Education?
When former President Donald Trump announced an executive order to terminate the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) during his 2024 campaign, it reignited a decades-old debate about the federal government’s role in education. But does this move hold real power, or is it largely symbolic? To understand its potential impact, we need to unpack the limits of presidential authority, the practical ways a president can weaken a federal agency, and the political forces driving this agenda.
—
Presidential Power vs. Congressional Authority
The first question many ask is straightforward: Can a sitting president unilaterally abolish a federal department? The short answer is no. The Department of Education was created by Congress in 1979 through the Department of Education Organization Act. Only Congress has the authority to dissolve it. An executive order cannot override this legislative framework.
However, presidents can use executive actions to undermine an agency’s functionality. For example, they can appoint leaders hostile to the agency’s mission, slash its budget through spending proposals, or redirect its resources toward pet projects. During his first term, Trump proposed steep cuts to the DoE’s funding—including a 13.5% reduction in 2020—though Congress largely rejected these measures. A second-term Trump administration could push harder to defund programs, reduce staff, or dismantle initiatives like student loan forgiveness or civil rights enforcement.
—
Where the Real Damage Could Happen
Even without congressional approval, a determined administration could erode the DoE’s influence in several key areas:
1. Budgetary Starvation
By proposing drastic budget cuts and redirecting funds, the White House could cripple the department’s ability to enforce policies or support states. Programs targeting low-income schools, special education, or teacher training could lose critical funding. While Congress holds the purse strings, prolonged political gridlock might force compromises that weaken the DoE’s reach.
2. Regulatory Rollbacks
The DoE oversees civil rights protections, Title IX enforcement, and accountability measures for federally funded schools. A hostile secretary could reinterpret rules to limit federal oversight. For instance, Trump’s first-term Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rolled back Obama-era guidelines on campus sexual assault investigations and loosened regulations on for-profit colleges. Similar actions in a second term could further dilute the department’s regulatory teeth.
3. Privatization and School Choice
Conservatives have long advocated redirecting public education funds toward charter schools, vouchers, and private institutions. Trump’s 2024 platform emphasizes “school choice” as a priority. By expanding programs that funnel taxpayer dollars into private education, the administration could sideline the DoE’s traditional role in supporting public schools—particularly in Democratic-leaning states.
4. Undermining Credibility
Political appointees who openly disparage the DoE’s mission can demoralize staff, slow decision-making, and reduce cooperation with states. High-profile resignations and vacancies—common during Trump’s first term—could also paralyze the department’s operations.
—
Who’s Pushing to Abolish the DoE—and Why?
The movement to eliminate the Department of Education isn’t new. It’s rooted in a libertarian-leaning philosophy that views federal involvement in education as unconstitutional and inefficient. Key advocates include:
– Conservative Think Tanks
Groups like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute argue that education policy should be handled locally. They claim federal oversight leads to bureaucratic bloat, one-size-fits-all standards, and overreach into state decisions.
– Republican Lawmakers
Figures like Senator Rand Paul and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have long criticized the DoE, framing it as a tool for liberal indoctrination. Their push aligns with broader efforts to reduce federal authority on issues like curriculum content (e.g., critical race theory debates).
– School Choice Advocates
Betsy DeVos and her allies see the DoE as an obstacle to privatizing education. Their goal is to shift power to parents and private entities, often through voucher systems that critics say divert resources from public schools.
– Populist Supporters
A portion of Trump’s base views the DoE as emblematic of “government overreach.” Abolishing it resonates with anti-establishment sentiments and distrust of Washington elites.
—
Why This Matters Beyond Politics
The debate over the DoE isn’t just ideological—it has tangible consequences. Federal programs like Pell Grants, Title I funding for disadvantaged schools, and student loan forgiveness directly impact millions of Americans. Weakening the DoE could widen disparities: underfunded schools might lose resources, civil rights violations could go unchallenged, and student debt burdens could grow.
At the same time, supporters argue that local control fosters innovation and accountability. They point to contentious issues like standardized testing and Common Core as examples of federal overreach.
—
The Bottom Line
Trump’s executive order to terminate the DoE is more political theater than actionable policy. But symbolism matters. It energizes his base, pressures Congress to consider cuts, and keeps education reform in the national conversation. Even without abolishing the department outright, a second Trump administration could leave it hobbled—shifting the balance of power in education for years to come.
Whether this agenda succeeds depends on Congress, the courts, and public pushback. For now, the Department of Education remains intact, but its future hinges on the outcome of a much larger battle over the role of government in American life.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » Can Trump Actually Dismantle the Department of Education