Dissecting Trump’s vow to eliminate the Education Department

Both on the campaign trail and from the Oval Office, President Trump has been outspoken about his disdain for the Department of Education, calling it a “big con job,” pledging to bring “school back to the states” and declaring his intention to dismantle the agency. His administration announced on March 6 that an executive order instructing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin the process of shutting down the department could be signed as soon as a week later. Trump has already begun efforts to minimize the agency’s functions, threatening to withhold federal funding from schools that don’t comply with his political priorities.

Established in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, the Department of Education is responsible for administering federal funds to states and local school districts, researching and collecting data on education, enforcing civil rights laws and overseeing federal student loans. The department’s annual budget of $240 billion is used to fund programs such as Title I for high-poverty schools and Pell Grants, which are given to college students with low family incomes and do not require reimbursement. Other vital programs include the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which supports students with disabilities, and management of student loans and financial aid, including administering the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

Although Trump has repeatedly emphasized his plans to dismantle the department, proposals for its elimination would require congressional approval and likely face political challenges. A proposal to end the agency would need 60 supporters to move to a vote in the Senate, and with 53 Republican senators and currently no Democrats or Independents supporting the motion, any bill can be expected to be shut down. A bill to dismantle the department was revoked just last year, with 60 Republicans and all 215 Democrats voting against it in the House of Representatives.

While vocal about dismantling the department, the Trump administration has stated that it would not seek to end federal support programs like Title l and IDEA. These programs are administered separately through different laws, making it more difficult to repeal them. Additionally, the law states that even if the department is disbanded, other agencies are required to assume responsibility for its current roles. Those in favor of dismantling the department have proposed that the Treasury Department take over the federal student loan program, or that the Justice Department could enforce civil rights laws that pertain to education. However, fears that a sudden change in management could lead to disruption in the programs have been vocalized by the public and politicians from both sides of the board.

With any plan to dismantle the department likely falling into gridlock, one of the most significant ways the Trump administration is attempting to reshape education is by withholding federal funding and minimizing the department’s responsibilities.

There have already been major budget cuts to the Department of Education, spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which Elon Musk oversees. According to the DOGE website, over $900 million has been cut with the termination of 89 contracts—mostly focused on the Institute of Education Sciences, the research sector of the agency. Additionally, on Feb. 28, the department offered $25,000 buyout plans to all employees ahead of “a very significant reduction” in the workforce, giving them until March 3—or three days—to respond.

The Californian education system receives major resources from the federal government. According to Education Data Initiative, the state received roughly $16.3 billion in total federal funding last year for its 5.8 million K-12 public school students, which includes $1.33 billion for serving students with disabilities, more than $1.5 billion in Pell Grants for college students and more than $2.1 billion in Title I grants.

Three percent of SMMUSD revenue also comes from the federal government, according to the latest 2024-25 Preliminary Budget breakdown from the district. This includes $1.5 million for targeted Title I programs and $2.4 million for the 1317 students enrolled in special education programs at SMMUSD.

Victoria Hurst, director of special education at SMMUSD, explained how the program and district are impacted by federal funding streams.

“Funding is all used for staffing. So in special education, we have teachers, we have paraprofessionals, we have occupational therapists, speech therapists, special PE teachers, physical therapists, counselors or psychologists—so anything like that falls under the federal funding,” Hurst said. “Funding special education programs are important because they help our students who need extra support. Our goal is to help our students thrive the best way that they can, and we need additional resources [federal funding] to help us meet that goal. The funding for staffing, especially, is important as it directly impacts our students.”

However, recent actions from the Department of Education have put similar resources across the country at risk, especially if schools continue to resist the administration’s ideological stance on issues like race and gender.

Currently, Trump has ordered investigations into the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) for violating “federal antidiscrimination laws related to girls’ and women’s sports.” This was following announcements from both organizations that they would abide by state laws allowing students to participate in sports based on their gender identity, contradicting Trump’s executive order decreeing that he would keep “men out of women’s sports.” In the same executive order, Trump also overhauled Biden-era Title IX policies which prohibited “discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs and activities that receive federal funding,” essentially expanding the definition of women to include transgender athletes. Trump, however, has re-interpreted the law to argue that allowing transgender athletes to compete is a form of discrimination against women.

Additionally, the Department of Education gave schools and colleges with Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs and race-specific programs until the end of February to abolish these policies or risk losing federal funding. These “race-specific programs” include financial aid targeting a particular race, race-related classes and special ethnic graduation ceremonies. As of now, how and when federal funds could be cut at schools that don’t comply with these policies is unknown.