Commentary
February 20, 2025
Education Access & Equity Education Policy Higher Education K-12 Education
Children & Families Human Rights & Civil Liberties
Congress Courts & Law Political Parties Presidency
U.S. States and Territories
Governance Studies
Brown Center on Education Policy Center for Economic Security and Opportunity
This is part of the “Why we have and need a US Department of Education” series which seeks to examine the role of the U.S. Department of Education at a time when the president of the United States has called for the Department’s demise. It considers what the Department does to shape education policy and practice in the United States. It also addresses misconceptions about the Department’s role and the president’s authority to dismantle it.
Proposals to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (ED) have arisen since the Department’s earliest days. Now, with President Trump placing the Department’s dismantling at the center his education policy agenda, the topic is getting considerable attention from reporters, policymakers, educators, and the public. Here, we provide answers to some of the most frequent questions that we are hearing.
This FAQs piece accompanies an explainer that provides additional information on what ED does.
No. ED was established by an act of Congress, and eliminating the agency would require another act of Congress. In 1979, President Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act into law. Along with establishing ED, this piece of legislation defined its organizational structure, leadership positions, and core responsibilities. For example, it states, “There shall be in the Department an Office for Civil Rights, to be administered by the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights” and then stipulates duties for that assistant secretary. All of this exists in statute and would require another act of Congress to change. An executive order or other unilateral executive action that “eliminates” ED would unambiguously violate the law.
Very unlikely, at least with the current composition of Congress (and assuming that the Senate filibuster remains in place). The Senate cloture rule requires 60 votes to end debate of a legislative proposal and move to a vote. A proposal to eliminate ED would be subject to that rule. Currently, the Senate consists of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two Independents who caucus with the Democrats. Recent polling indicates that abolishing ED is unpopular with voters, with more than three-quarters of Democrats and a plurality of Republicans opposed to the idea. It seems exceedingly unlikely that a bill to shut down ED would attract enough support from Democratic senators to overcome the filibuster. Some congressional Republicans might try anyway—as they have with H.R.899—but, realistically, these moves will not go anywhere barring major changes in the political environment or Senate procedures.
Yes, to an extent. As the leader of the executive branch, the president has considerable influence over how Cabinet-level departments operate. This includes some control over departmental structure, particularly when offices, initiatives, and programs within a department are not defined in legislation. However, a president cannot unilaterally eliminate offices (such as the Office for Civil Rights) or programs (such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) that exist in statute.
The president also plays an important role in staffing, since several key leadership positions are filled by political appointees. In ED, this includes 15 appointments that require Senate confirmation and over 100 that do not. The vast majority of ED employees are not political appointees. However, the Trump administration has shown its intent to exert far more influence over these positions than is traditional and perhaps legal (e.g., by reclassifying civil servant positions to strip them of their job protections against politically motivated dismissals). If the Trump administration follows through on threats to shrink the workforce at ED, it could diminish ED’s capacity to fulfill its core duties. For example, Federal Student Aid (FSA) may struggle to properly count payments toward loan forgiveness, and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) may struggle to keep up with incoming complaints. ED has arguably been understaffed in several areas for some time (including at FSA and OCR), and further cuts could have major consequences for its ability to function, at least in the short run.
No, not without additional congressional action. One of ED’s core functions is to administer programs and enforce laws from numerous pieces of legislation, including some that predate ED itself. This includes Title I (and the rest of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), IDEA, the Higher Education Act, and several civil rights laws. Even if ED were dismantled, these laws would continue to exist, and other agencies would need to assume responsibilities currently held by ED. Many of these programs—including Title I and IDEA—have enjoyed strong, bipartisan political support, largely because they provide resources and protections to students in all parts of the country. (In fact, many of the states that receive the largest share of their overall per-pupil funding in Title I funds lean Republican.)
However, there is uncertainty about some programs in both the short and long term. Most immediately, the Trump administration looks poised to test the limits of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and withhold congressionally appropriated funds from their intended recipients. This was evident in the administration’s now-rescinded freeze of trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans. Moreover, as Congress debates FY2025 (and future) budget plans, cuts to Title I, financial aid programs, and other sources of education funding are possible—and likely would not be protected by the Senate filibuster.
Yes, the federal government administers several programs that affect students and schools but do not reside in ED. This includes several child nutrition programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, such as the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), School Breakfast Program (SBP), and Summer EBT Program (funding for kids’ summer meals). These are large programs. In FY2023, for example, the budget for NSLP ($17.3 billion) fell between the budgets of Title I ($18.4 billion) and IDEA ($15.4 billion). In addition, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services administers the Head Start program and Child Care and Development Fund, which serve millions of families with young children, while the Department of Veterans Affairs administers GI bill funds for veterans and their families. This is only a small sampling of federal programs that affect students in one way or another. In fact, many large federal programs, such as Medicaid, directly impact millions of U.S. students.
If ED were somehow dismantled, these programs would not be eliminated along with it unless Congress included specific additional provisions to do so. However, many of these programs could be targets for cuts in domestic spending—and some, such as Head Start, were caught up in the Trump administration’s since-rescinded freeze on federal grants and loans.
While details remain unclear, another federal agency would need to assume the responsibilities associated with administering federal loan programs. Project 2025 called for moving these roles to the U.S. Department of Treasury, which would require an act of Congress, and then for fully privatizing the student loan system.
It is very unlikely that a change to ED would lead to large-scale cancellations of current student loans. However, some types of changes to student loan policies and programs seem likely. The student loan repayment system is in disarray amid litigation surrounding Income Driven Repayment (IDR) plan regulations issued by the Biden administration. The Trump administration may decline to defend the regulations in court, and there is considerable uncertainty around the future of IDR. Notably, aid programs such as the federal Pell Grant program, and loan repayment options such as IDR and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) are specified in law and would require legislation to change or eliminate.
No. The federal role in education is important but limited. By virtue of the Constitution’s silence on education, responsibility for running schools is left to the states. In fact, federal law is explicit in prohibiting the federal government from exerting direction, supervision, or control over what is taught in school. In an executive order titled, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” the Trump administration threatened to withhold funding from schools that promote “gender ideology or discriminatory equity ideology.” This prompted concerns across the political spectrum that the president was inappropriately and illegally wading into curricular decisions outside of the president’s control.
The federal government can withhold (or take back) education funding authorized by Congress in some limited situations. One such situation is that the money is not spent on its intended purpose. For example, Title I funds must be spent on educational services for educationally disadvantaged students, and research grants must be spent on research activities. Recipients of federal funding must show that they used the money for its intended purpose (and could be required to return funding if an audit shows they did not). A second situation is that the recipient fails to comply with other provisions of the law authorizing the spending. For example, under the Every Student Succeeds Act, states must report school-level spending data. ED could withhold funding if these conditions are not met, but we are not aware of any recent cases in which this happened. A third situation involves violations of civil rights law. Federal civil rights laws prohibit any entity that discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, shared ancestry, sex, age, or disability status from receiving any federal funding. However, withholding funds for civil rights violations is also exceedingly rare and has been treated as an option of last resort.
Related Content
Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Sarah Reber, Jon Valant
February 20, 2025
Lauren Bauer, Sofoklis Goulas, Michael Hansen, Katharine Meyer, Emily Markovich Morris, Rachel M. Perera, Sarah Reber, Sweta Shah, Jon Valant
February 20, 2025
Rachel M. Perera
February 13, 2025
Authors
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
Education Access & Equity Education Policy Higher Education K-12 Education
Children & Families Human Rights & Civil Liberties
Congress Courts & Law Political Parties Presidency
U.S. States and Territories
Governance Studies
North America U.S. States and Territories
Brown Center on Education Policy Center for Economic Security and Opportunity
Lauren Bauer, Sofoklis Goulas, Michael Hansen, Katharine Meyer, Emily Markovich Morris, Rachel M. Perera, Sarah Reber, Sweta Shah, Jon Valant
February 20, 2025
Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Sarah Reber, Jon Valant
February 20, 2025
February 20, 2025
Get the latest from Brookings
The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. Our mission is to conduct in-depth, nonpartisan research to improve policy and governance at local, national, and global levels.
Copyright 2025 The Brookings Institution