The Reality Behind Trump’s Threat to Dismantle the Department of Education
When former President Donald Trump floated the idea of eliminating the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) during his 2016 campaign, it sparked immediate debate. Years later, discussions about his executive order to terminate the agency continue to resurface. But how much power does a president actually have to dismantle a federal department? What tangible harm could such a move inflict on American education, and who supports this drastic step—and why? Let’s unpack the mechanics, motives, and potential consequences.
—
Can a President Unilaterally Abolish a Federal Agency?
The short answer: No. While presidents wield significant authority over executive branch agencies, eliminating an entire department requires congressional approval. The Department of Education was established by Congress in 1979, and only Congress holds the power to dissolve it. An executive order targeting the DoE would lack legal teeth unless lawmakers cooperate.
However, a president can weaken an agency without formally abolishing it. Strategies include slashing budgets, appointing hostile leadership, or scaling back enforcement of key policies. During Trump’s tenure, his administration took steps in this direction: proposing deep budget cuts, rolling back Obama-era regulations on campus sexual assault and for-profit colleges, and appointing Betsy DeVos—a vocal critic of public education—as Secretary of Education.
In other words, while Trump’s rhetoric about “terminating” the DoE may be more symbolic than actionable, his administration demonstrated how a president can undermine its functions through indirect means.
—
What Real Damage Could Be Done?
Even without congressional support, a determined president could inflict lasting harm on the DoE’s mission. Here’s how:
1. Budget Cuts: Federal funding for programs like Title I (supporting low-income schools), Pell Grants, and special education could shrink, disproportionately affecting marginalized students. For example, Trump’s 2021 budget proposal sought to cut $6 billion from the DoE, including eliminating subsidized student loans and after-school programs.
2. Deregulation: A president could relax oversight of for-profit colleges, civil rights protections, or student loan servicers. Under DeVos, the DoE delayed loan forgiveness for defrauded students and weakened Title IX protections for survivors of sexual assault.
3. Privatization Push: By diverting public funds to charter schools or voucher programs, the federal government could accelerate the privatization of education—a goal long championed by conservatives. Critics argue this undermines public school systems and exacerbates inequity.
4. Erosion of Expertise: Starving the DoE of resources could hollow out its ability to collect data, enforce laws, or advise states. Over time, this might cripple its role in addressing systemic issues like achievement gaps or school segregation.
—
Who’s Advocating for Dismantling the DoE—and Why?
The push to abolish the DoE isn’t new. It’s rooted in a decades-old conservative belief that education should be controlled locally, not by the federal government. Key advocates include:
– Libertarian Think Tanks: Groups like the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation argue that the DoE overreaches into state and local decisions, stifling innovation. They view its existence as unconstitutional, citing the 10th Amendment’s reservation of powers to the states.
– School Choice Advocates: Betsy DeVos and allies see the DoE as a barrier to expanding charter schools and vouchers. Eliminating the department could remove federal accountability measures, allowing states to redirect funds toward privatization.
– Populist Republicans: For some Trump-aligned politicians, attacking the DoE is part of a broader anti-“deep state” narrative. Framing the department as a bureaucratic monster resonates with voters skeptical of government overreach.
—
Why the Threat Matters—Even If the DoE Survives
While abolishing the DoE remains unlikely, the ongoing debate reflects deeper ideological divides:
– Federal vs. Local Control: Critics argue that education policy should reflect community needs, not a one-size-fits-all federal agenda. Supporters counter that the DoE ensures baseline equity, particularly for disadvantaged students.
– Political Symbolism: Targeting the DoE energizes conservative bases, even if legislative wins are elusive. It also distracts from more nuanced policy discussions, such as how to improve existing federal programs.
– Long-Term Consequences: Incremental budget cuts or deregulation could gradually erode the DoE’s ability to address crises like pandemic learning loss or student debt. For example, Trump’s suspension of student loan payments (later extended by Biden) highlighted how executive actions can shape education finance—for better or worse.
—
The Bottom Line
Trump’s threat to eliminate the Department of Education is largely a political maneuver rather than a policy blueprint. Yet the sentiment behind it—distrust of federal involvement in education—has real-world implications. Even if the DoE remains intact, sustained efforts to defund or deregulate it could weaken protections for vulnerable students and reshape the landscape of American education.
For now, the department’s fate hinges on Congress and the courts. But as history shows, executive actions can leave lasting scars, regardless of their “teeth.” The bigger question isn’t whether the DoE will vanish overnight, but whether its core mission—ensuring equal access to quality education—can withstand the political winds.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Reality Behind Trump’s Threat to Dismantle the Department of Education