Former President Donald Trump has reignited a debate by proposing to shut down the U.S. Department of Education (DoE), advocating for a return of educational authority to the states. This proposal, highlighted at recent rallies, is not new; Trump had floated similar ideas during his 2016 campaign too. While the notion of dismantling the Department of Education (DoE) is gaining traction among some conservative circles, the feasibility of such a move is uncertain.It raises important questions about whether this is politically achievable and what the potential implications could be.
US DoE: Why Trump wants to take it down
Trump claims that the country’s education system ranks poorly compared to other developed nations, despite spending more per student. His broader argument is that many U.S. states could manage education more effectively and at a lower cost if they were given full control. He suggests that a majority of states would perform well without federal oversight.
However, Trump’s desire to dismantle the Department of Education is not purely financial. For conservatives like Trump, education should be managed locally, as the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a federal role in this domain. To them, the department represents unnecessary federal overreach. Republicans have long pushed for its abolition, arguing that local control would allow schools to better align with community values and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. Critics of the department also point to what they see as overreach under Democratic administrations, such as civil rights enforcement and policies around student discipline and protections for LGBTQ students. Supporters of local control believe that states have been successful in implementing innovations, like charter schools and educational savings accounts, which are often stifled by federal bureaucracy. For Trump and his allies, eliminating the department is consistent with their broader push for smaller government and a more localized approach to governance.
The long-standing US dilemma: Should the Department of Education cease to be?
The question of whether the US Department of Education (DoE) should be abolished has been a recurring topic in American political discourse. Established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the DoE was created to consolidate federal education functions and ensure a more organised approach to educational policy and funding. The department’s creation aimed to address disparities in education and ensure that all students had access to quality education. However, from its inception, the DoE has faced scrutiny and opposition.
The Founding and Early Criticisms: The establishment of the DoE was controversial from the start. Critics argued that education should remain a state and local responsibility, reflecting the federal government’s minimal role in education as outlined by the U.S. Constitution. Opponents believed that the creation of a federal department would lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and government overreach, a sentiment that has persisted over the decades.
The Reagan Era and the Push for Abolition: During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, a strong advocate for reducing federal intervention, made attempts to eliminate the DoE. Reagan’s administration argued that the department’s functions could be handled more efficiently at the state level and that federal control led to inefficiencies and infringed on local autonomy. Despite these efforts, the department remained intact, largely due to political resistance and the practical challenges of dismantling a federal agency.
DoE During The Clinton and Bush Administrations: The debate over the DoE continued into the 1990s and early 2000s. Under President Bill Clinton, the department played a significant role in educational reforms, including the implementation of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which aimed to improve educational standards and accountability. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, introduced during President George W. Bush’s tenure further expanded the department’s role in setting academic standards and testing requirements.
Pros of dismantling the Department of Education
Greater Local Control: Dismantling the Department of Education could lead to greater local control, allowing states and communities to tailor education policies to their specific needs. Local authorities are often better positioned to understand the unique challenges faced by their students, whether related to culture, economy, or regional disparities. With less federal oversight and red tape, communities could implement flexible approaches that align with their values and priorities, ensuring more relevant curricula and resource allocation. Proponents argue that this shift would foster innovation, reduce bureaucracy, and empower schools to focus on improving educational outcomes based on localised strategies and real-world needs.
Reduced Federal Spending: Eliminating the DoE could potentially reduce federal spending. Some proponents claim that cutting the department’s budget, which was, according to the EducationWeek, approximately $79 billion in 2023, would decrease the federal deficit and reduce taxpayers’ burden. The 2024 budget was also around $79.1 billion, but was signed into law after months of continuing resolutions. The 2025 budget request is $82.4 billion, which is lower than the requested budgets for 2024 and 2023, but higher than the enacted budgets for those years.
Reduced Red Tape: Supporters also contend that dismantling the department would reduce bureaucratic red tape, enabling states to innovate and implement education reforms more effectively. They believe that the DoE often imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that may not suit all states or districts.
Cons of eliminating the Department of Education
Loss of Federal Oversight and Funding: Critics argue that the DoE plays a crucial role in ensuring equal access to quality education, enforcing civil rights laws, and providing oversight to prevent discrimination. Abolishing it could weaken protections for marginalised groups, including students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds.
Impact on Student Aid: Shutting down the US Department of Education is likely to disrupt the two major funding programmes that currently total over $30 billion, which support children with disabilities and students from low-income families. These programmes, established by Congress, are crucial for providing targeted assistance and resources to schools serving these vulnerable populations. Without the department’s oversight, there could be significant uncertainty about how these funds would be allocated and managed. The absence of a federal body to administer these programs might lead to reduced support or inconsistencies in funding, potentially harming the educational opportunities for these disadvantaged groups.
Potential for Increased Inequality: Opponents fear that dismantling the DoE could exacerbate inequalities between states. Wealthier states might maintain or improve their education systems, while poorer states could struggle without federal support, widening the education gap across the country.
Is it possible to eliminate the US DoE?
Eliminating the Department of Education is a complex task that would require congressional action. The DoE, established as a cabinet-level agency in 1979, was created to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. For the department to be abolished, Congress would need to pass legislation to dismantle it, which is a significant political hurdle. Even with a Republican majority, achieving a consensus to shut down a federal agency that oversees key functions, such as federal student loans and civil rights in education, may be challenging.
Though a president cannot unilaterally dissolve the DoE, several policy goals aligned with Trump’s vision could be implemented through executive orders. For example, funding for certain programmes could be cut, or regulatory changes could be introduced to reduce the department’s influence. However, such actions would not equate to a complete elimination of the department and could face legal challenges.
Whether Trump’s plan is possible or impossible remains uncertain, but its implications can be far-reaching, potentially altering the landscape of American education in profound ways.
US DoE: Why Trump wants to take it down
Trump claims that the country’s education system ranks poorly compared to other developed nations, despite spending more per student. His broader argument is that many U.S. states could manage education more effectively and at a lower cost if they were given full control. He suggests that a majority of states would perform well without federal oversight.
However, Trump’s desire to dismantle the Department of Education is not purely financial. For conservatives like Trump, education should be managed locally, as the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention a federal role in this domain. To them, the department represents unnecessary federal overreach. Republicans have long pushed for its abolition, arguing that local control would allow schools to better align with community values and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. Critics of the department also point to what they see as overreach under Democratic administrations, such as civil rights enforcement and policies around student discipline and protections for LGBTQ students. Supporters of local control believe that states have been successful in implementing innovations, like charter schools and educational savings accounts, which are often stifled by federal bureaucracy. For Trump and his allies, eliminating the department is consistent with their broader push for smaller government and a more localized approach to governance.
The long-standing US dilemma: Should the Department of Education cease to be?
The question of whether the US Department of Education (DoE) should be abolished has been a recurring topic in American political discourse. Established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the DoE was created to consolidate federal education functions and ensure a more organised approach to educational policy and funding. The department’s creation aimed to address disparities in education and ensure that all students had access to quality education. However, from its inception, the DoE has faced scrutiny and opposition.
The Founding and Early Criticisms: The establishment of the DoE was controversial from the start. Critics argued that education should remain a state and local responsibility, reflecting the federal government’s minimal role in education as outlined by the U.S. Constitution. Opponents believed that the creation of a federal department would lead to unnecessary bureaucracy and government overreach, a sentiment that has persisted over the decades.
The Reagan Era and the Push for Abolition: During the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan, a strong advocate for reducing federal intervention, made attempts to eliminate the DoE. Reagan’s administration argued that the department’s functions could be handled more efficiently at the state level and that federal control led to inefficiencies and infringed on local autonomy. Despite these efforts, the department remained intact, largely due to political resistance and the practical challenges of dismantling a federal agency.
DoE During The Clinton and Bush Administrations: The debate over the DoE continued into the 1990s and early 2000s. Under President Bill Clinton, the department played a significant role in educational reforms, including the implementation of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which aimed to improve educational standards and accountability. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, introduced during President George W. Bush’s tenure further expanded the department’s role in setting academic standards and testing requirements.
Pros of dismantling the Department of Education
Greater Local Control: Dismantling the Department of Education could lead to greater local control, allowing states and communities to tailor education policies to their specific needs. Local authorities are often better positioned to understand the unique challenges faced by their students, whether related to culture, economy, or regional disparities. With less federal oversight and red tape, communities could implement flexible approaches that align with their values and priorities, ensuring more relevant curricula and resource allocation. Proponents argue that this shift would foster innovation, reduce bureaucracy, and empower schools to focus on improving educational outcomes based on localised strategies and real-world needs.
Reduced Federal Spending: Eliminating the DoE could potentially reduce federal spending. Some proponents claim that cutting the department’s budget, which was, according to the EducationWeek, approximately $79 billion in 2023, would decrease the federal deficit and reduce taxpayers’ burden. The 2024 budget was also around $79.1 billion, but was signed into law after months of continuing resolutions. The 2025 budget request is $82.4 billion, which is lower than the requested budgets for 2024 and 2023, but higher than the enacted budgets for those years.
Reduced Red Tape: Supporters also contend that dismantling the department would reduce bureaucratic red tape, enabling states to innovate and implement education reforms more effectively. They believe that the DoE often imposes a one-size-fits-all approach that may not suit all states or districts.
Cons of eliminating the Department of Education
Loss of Federal Oversight and Funding: Critics argue that the DoE plays a crucial role in ensuring equal access to quality education, enforcing civil rights laws, and providing oversight to prevent discrimination. Abolishing it could weaken protections for marginalised groups, including students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds.
Impact on Student Aid: Shutting down the US Department of Education is likely to disrupt the two major funding programmes that currently total over $30 billion, which support children with disabilities and students from low-income families. These programmes, established by Congress, are crucial for providing targeted assistance and resources to schools serving these vulnerable populations. Without the department’s oversight, there could be significant uncertainty about how these funds would be allocated and managed. The absence of a federal body to administer these programs might lead to reduced support or inconsistencies in funding, potentially harming the educational opportunities for these disadvantaged groups.
Potential for Increased Inequality: Opponents fear that dismantling the DoE could exacerbate inequalities between states. Wealthier states might maintain or improve their education systems, while poorer states could struggle without federal support, widening the education gap across the country.
Is it possible to eliminate the US DoE?
Eliminating the Department of Education is a complex task that would require congressional action. The DoE, established as a cabinet-level agency in 1979, was created to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access. For the department to be abolished, Congress would need to pass legislation to dismantle it, which is a significant political hurdle. Even with a Republican majority, achieving a consensus to shut down a federal agency that oversees key functions, such as federal student loans and civil rights in education, may be challenging.
Though a president cannot unilaterally dissolve the DoE, several policy goals aligned with Trump’s vision could be implemented through executive orders. For example, funding for certain programmes could be cut, or regulatory changes could be introduced to reduce the department’s influence. However, such actions would not equate to a complete elimination of the department and could face legal challenges.
Whether Trump’s plan is possible or impossible remains uncertain, but its implications can be far-reaching, potentially altering the landscape of American education in profound ways.
