The Closure of the Federal Department of Education: A Critical Analysis
Assessing the Potential Impact of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order on U.S. Education
March 21, 2025 — In a sweeping move, President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing the closure of the Federal Department of Education. This decision, framed as an effort to return educational authority to states, local communities, and parents, has sparked intense debate across political, academic, and civil circles. While the administration argues that decentralization will empower stakeholders and promote educational success, critics warn of detrimental consequences for equity, access, and academic achievement.
I. The Justification for Closing the Department of Education
President Trump’s decision is grounded in the belief that the Federal Department of Education has become a bureaucratic impediment rather than a facilitator of educational progress. The executive order asserts that decades of federal oversight have failed to improve academic performance, pointing to stagnant test scores and declining proficiency in subjects like reading and mathematics.
According to the administration:
- Federal Overreach: The Department has, in their view, undermined state sovereignty and local autonomy in education.
- Inefficiency: The agency is criticized for maintaining a large administrative apparatus with excessive spending, including a public relations office with over 80 employees.
- Mismanagement of Student Loans: With a $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio, the Department is accused of mismanagement, further supporting the call for privatization or decentralized financial management.
- Lack of Results: National reading and math proficiency levels remain historically low, despite substantial federal investment.
Taxpayers spent around $200 billion at the Federal level on schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, on top of the more than $60 billion they spend annually on Federal school funding. This money is largely distributed by one of the newest Cabinet agencies, the Department of Education, which has existed for less than one fifth of our Nation’s history. The Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, who received a first-ever Presidential endorsement from the country’s largest teachers’ union shortly after pledging to the union his support for a separate Department of Education. Since then, the Department of Education has entrenched the education bureaucracy and sought to convince America that Federal control over education is beneficial. While the Department of Education does not educate anyone, it maintains a public relations office that includes over 80 staffers at a cost of more than $10 million per year.
II. Potential Impact on K-12 Education
A. Decentralization and State Control
Returning educational authority to the states could amplify local decision-making and allow policies tailored to regional needs. States with robust educational systems may benefit from the increased flexibility, implementing innovative curricula and expanding school choice initiatives.
However, the absence of federal oversight raises concerns about the exacerbation of educational inequities. States with fewer resources or weaker governance structures may struggle to provide quality education, disproportionately affecting low-income students and communities of color.
B. Funding Disparities
The Federal Department of Education allocates billions annually in Title I funding to support disadvantaged schools. Without federal oversight, disparities between well-funded and underfunded districts may worsen, perpetuating the achievement gap. Rural and urban schools heavily reliant on federal aid could face severe budgetary constraints.
C. Special Education and Civil Rights Protections
The Department of Education enforces essential civil rights laws under legislation like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Title IX. Critics fear that without a central authority ensuring compliance, vulnerable students may lose access to necessary support and legal protections.
III. Higher Education and Student Financial Aid
A. Privatization of Student Loan Management
The executive order highlights the Department’s student loan debt management as a failure, proposing a return to private sector oversight. While proponents argue this would enhance efficiency and customer service, the risks of predatory lending and diminished borrower protections are significant.
The removal of federal regulations could lead to unfair lending practices and higher interest rates, disproportionately impacting middle- and low-income students. Moreover, the absence of federal initiatives like loan forgiveness programs could further burden borrowers.
B. Research and Innovation
Federal grants and funding from the Department of Education support critical research in pedagogy, learning disabilities, and educational technology. The dissolution of this funding stream could hinder innovation in education and limit advancements in evidence-based teaching methods.
IV. Socioeconomic and Political Ramifications
A. Widening Inequality
The shift of control from federal to state governments could result in a patchwork of policies across the country. Wealthier states may implement progressive educational reforms, while poorer states may struggle to maintain even basic standards. This fragmentation risks deepening the urban-rural educational divide.
B. Impact on Educators
Without federal grants and funding for professional development and teacher training programs, educators may experience fewer opportunities for career growth. Furthermore, the erosion of federal protections could lead to diminished union power and weakened collective bargaining rights.
C. The Politicization of Education
Decentralization also opens the door for increased political influence over curricula and educational standards. Contentious topics such as climate change, evolution, and historical narratives may be subject to ideological manipulation at the state level.
V. A Crossroads for American Education
The closure of the Federal Department of Education marks a watershed moment in the governance of American education. While the administration’s focus on empowering local communities and reducing federal influence appeals to proponents of limited government, the risks of diminished accountability, increased inequality, and weakened protections for vulnerable students remain profound.
As the nation embarks on this unprecedented experiment, the success or failure of this policy will largely depend on the ability of state governments to rise to the challenge. Robust public discourse, vigilant oversight, and a commitment to educational equity will be essential to ensure that every child, regardless of background, has access to a quality education.
The stakes are immense, and the future of American education hangs in the balance.
Text of the Order
Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities
Executive Orders
March 20, 2025
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to enable parents, teachers, and communities to best ensure student success, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose and Policy. Our Nation’s bright future relies on empowered families, engaged communities, and excellent educational opportunities for every child. Unfortunately, the experiment of controlling American education through Federal programs and dollars — and the unaccountable bureaucracy those programs and dollars support — has plainly failed our children, our teachers, and our families.
Taxpayers spent around $200 billion at the Federal level on schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, on top of the more than $60 billion they spend annually on Federal school funding. This money is largely distributed by one of the newest Cabinet agencies, the Department of Education, which has existed for less than one fifth of our Nation’s history. The Congress created the Department of Education in 1979 at the urging of President Jimmy Carter, who received a first-ever Presidential endorsement from the country’s largest teachers’ union shortly after pledging to the union his support for a separate Department of Education. Since then, the Department of Education has entrenched the education bureaucracy and sought to convince America that Federal control over education is beneficial. While the Department of Education does not educate anyone, it maintains a public relations office that includes over 80 staffers at a cost of more than $10 million per year.
Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them. Today, American reading and math scores are near historical lows. This year’s National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that 70 percent of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72 percent were below proficient in math. The Federal education bureaucracy is not working.
Closure of the Department of Education would drastically improve program implementation in higher education. The Department of Education currently manages a student loan debt portfolio of more than $1.6 trillion. This means the Federal student aid program is roughly the size of one of the Nation’s largest banks, Wells Fargo. But although Wells Fargo has more than 200,000 employees, the Department of Education has fewer than 1,500 in its Office of Federal Student Aid. The Department of Education is not a bank, and it must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students.
Ultimately, the Department of Education’s main functions can, and should, be returned to the States.
Sec. 2. Closing the Department of Education and Returning Authority to the States. (a) The Secretary of Education shall, to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.
(b) Consistent with the Department of Education’s authorities, the Secretary of Education shall ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department of Education funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy, including the requirement that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.
Sec. 3. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 20, 2025.
