The Uncertain Future of Trump’s Push to Dismantle the Department of Education
In 2017, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to identify ways to shrink the government, including potentially eliminating the U.S. Department of Education (DoE). While the order itself didn’t abolish the department outright, it reignited a decades-old conservative goal: stripping federal oversight of education and returning power to states. But does this effort have teeth, or is it largely symbolic? What real-world consequences could arise from weakening the DoE—and who stands to gain from its demise?
Executive Orders vs. Legislative Reality
First, it’s important to clarify what a president can actually do through executive action. The Department of Education, established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, is a Cabinet-level agency created by Congress. To eliminate it entirely would require congressional approval—a steep hurdle given today’s divided government. Trump’s 2017 order, Executive Order 13891, focused on reducing federal regulations and streamlining agencies, but it didn’t explicitly target the DoE. However, Trump’s rhetoric and subsequent budget proposals revealed a clear intent to diminish the department’s role.
During his presidency, Trump proposed slashing the DoE’s budget by over $9 billion, targeting programs like after-school initiatives and teacher training. Congress rejected these cuts, but the messaging was clear: the administration viewed federal involvement in education as bureaucratic overreach. Even without legislative support, a president can weaken agencies by appointing leaders hostile to their missions. Betsy DeVos, Trump’s education secretary, famously opposed public school systems and championed school choice policies, signaling a shift in priorities.
Where the Damage Could Happen
While abolishing the DoE remains unlikely without congressional action, a determined administration can still erode its influence. Here’s how:
1. Budgetary Starvation: By proposing drastic budget cuts (even if Congress resists them), the executive branch can create uncertainty for schools and programs reliant on federal grants. For example, Title I funding, which supports low-income schools, has faced repeated threats of reduction, leaving districts in limbo.
2. Regulatory Rollbacks: The DoE enforces civil rights protections, oversees student loan programs, and ensures equitable access to education. Under DeVos, the department scaled back investigations into campus sexual assault and rolled back Obama-era guidelines on disciplining students of color. Such changes can disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
3. Privatization Push: Conservatives have long argued that education should be locally controlled. By diverting funds to charter schools and voucher programs—policies DeVos aggressively promoted—the federal government could indirectly undermine public school systems, which rely on stable federal support.
4. Personnel and Morale: Appointing leaders who oppose the department’s mission can demoralize staff and slow progress. Career civil servants may leave or become less effective if their work is deprioritized or mocked by political appointees.
Who’s Advocating for This—and Why?
The push to dismantle the DoE isn’t new. Ronald Reagan campaigned on abolishing it in 1980, calling it a “bureaucratic boondoggle.” While Reagan failed, the idea remains a rallying cry for limited-government conservatives and libertarians. Key advocates include:
– The Heritage Foundation: This influential conservative think tank has argued for decades that education policy should be decentralized. They view the DoE as a tool for federal overreach, imposing “one-size-fits-all” standards like Common Core (though Common Core was state-developed, not federal).
– School Choice Advocates: Groups like the American Federation for Children, formerly led by Betsy DeVos, see dismantling the DoE as a step toward privatizing education. They argue that competition improves quality and that parents—not governments—should decide where tax dollars go.
– States’ Rights Proponents: Governors and state legislators in conservative-leaning states often resent federal mandates tied to funding. For example, requirements to adopt certain testing standards or anti-discrimination policies are seen as infringements on local autonomy.
– Fiscal Hawks: Critics argue the DoE duplicates state efforts and wastes taxpayer money. They point to rising student loan debt and stagnant test scores as evidence of federal failure.
The Counterargument: Why the DoE Matters
Opponents of dismantling the department emphasize its role in protecting vulnerable students. The DoE enforces Title IX (gender equity), ensures disabled students receive accommodations under IDEA, and investigates discrimination complaints. Without federal oversight, critics fear states might neglect these responsibilities, especially in regions with histories of underfunding schools serving Black, Latino, or low-income students.
Federal grants also help level the playing field. Programs like Pell Grants and Head Start provide critical support to students who might otherwise lack access to education. While imperfect, the DoE’s data collection and research arm helps identify systemic inequities—a function that could vanish if the department is gutted.
The Bottom Line: Symbolism vs. Substance
Trump’s executive order alone won’t erase the Department of Education. However, it reflects a broader ideological battle over the federal government’s role in education. Even without elimination, sustained efforts to defund, deregulate, and delegitimize the DoE could have lasting consequences—particularly for students who depend on its protections.
The debate ultimately hinges on a fundamental question: Is education a national responsibility or a local one? Advocates for dismantling the DoE argue for the latter, prioritizing flexibility and innovation. Opponents warn that without federal safeguards, disparities in funding and access will widen, leaving the most vulnerable students behind. As political tides shift, the department’s future remains uncertain—but its impact on millions of Americans is undeniable.
Please indicate: Thinking In Educating » The Uncertain Future of Trump’s Push to Dismantle the Department of Education