蜜桃影视

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 蜜桃影视 Newsletter

President Donald Trump says he wants to 鈥渄ismantle鈥� the U.S. Department of Education.

What would that mean for America鈥檚 schools?

The answer depends on whether to take Trump literally颅, and assume everything the department does would cease, or to take him seriously in the sense that he wants to close the department but shift many of its funding streams and functions to other federal agencies. The latter is closer to how the Heritage Foundation鈥檚 and former Institute of Education Sciences Director Mark Schneider describe the potential changes.

For example, Project 2025 recommended shifting Title I money and special education funding through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act () into the Department of Health and Human Services.

As 蜜桃影视’s Linda Jacobson noted earlier this month, these and other programs run by the Department of Education are congressionally authorized, so the decisions over funding levels and oversight should ultimately come down to Congress. But the Trump administration could try to both move funding streams and weaken federal oversight of them. For example, Project 2025 also recommended converting the Title I program and IDEA from their current forms to 鈥渘o-strings-attached formula block grant(s).鈥�

I worked with the to understand how these issues might play out for states and schools. Here are three potential scenarios:  

Take Trump literally: The department is closed and all its programs cease to exist 

Most people might assume that closing the department means all its operations will cease. Given congressional political dynamics, this is unlikely. Still, it鈥檚 important to understand the full suite of funding that flows from the department.

This year, school districts will an estimated $44 billion in formula funding for elementary and secondary programs from the department. In addition to a wide variety of competitive and other line items, this includes:

•   $18.6 billion for low-income students in Title I schools;
  
•  $15.4 billion for students with disabilities under IDEA;
  
• $2.2 billion for district investments in class size reductions and other teacher initiatives;
  
• $1.3 billion for before- and after-school programs;
  
•  $940 million for English learners;
  
• $1.5 billion for vocational and adult education.

The department also oversees higher education funding. This year, college students nationwide will receive an estimated $41.4 billion in Pell Grants and work study funds, and they will take out $93 billion in federally backed student loans. If the department is closed, that funding would be at risk as well.

Take Trump seriously but not literally: The department is closed, but many of its funding streams live on in other federal agencies

Under this scenario, the situation is less dire. It鈥檚 possible Congress could simply move the funding streams that currently sit at the department over to Health and Human Services, Treasury or other agencies. If all programs found a new home, schools could theoretically be held harmless financially.

However, the authors of Project 2025 proposed that Congress shift both the agency responsible for federal education funding and the form that funding takes. If it were converted into block grants, which carry less federal oversight, states would no longer be subject to government requirements around annual testing, school accountability or services for English learners and students with disabilities. Students would also lose important federal protections.

Similarly, the department鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights is tasked with resolving legal complaints and accusations of discrimination against schools and districts. In 2024 alone, Americans on a variety of offenses, mostly pertaining to disability rights, racial or sexual harassment, or other forms of discrimination. If the department closed, it鈥檚 unclear where these types of cases would be resolved, or if the claimants would have the same rights to ask for a resolution as they do now.

Congress makes no changes: The money keeps flowing, and the Trump administration weakens and weaponizes the department

Given today’s political dynamics, this is perhaps the most likely outcome. It鈥檚 unlikely that congressional Republicans will have the votes to dismantle the department entirely, and they will likely not have the time or political capital to think through a full replacement plan. During the first Trump administration, for example, the official President鈥檚 Budget proposed a handful of programmatic cuts, but Congress mostly ignored those and continued Title I, IDEA and other programs at or slightly above their previous levels. If this scenario plays out, schools would be unaffected financially, since the money would continue to flow at current levels.

But the administration might still try to weaken the department and its influence over state and local education policy. Some of this has already started to take shape, with a series of contract cancellations and of department workers hired within the last 12 months.

It鈥檚 unclear how far this will go. Would the administration stop enforcing certain provisions of federal law, including perhaps the requirement for annual testing or the identification of and intervention in low-performing schools? Twelve state chiefs have already sent a letter asking for more funding flexibility and waivers to unnamed federal requirements. One signatory was North Dakota Chief Kirsten Baesler, who has since been nominated as the department’s assistant secretary.

While the department’s new leadership has yet to take over, the administration has also attempted to weaponize the federal role by launching OCR investigations of gender issues related to and . The department also sent a 鈥淒ear Colleague鈥� letter warning that OCR plans to schools or districts that pursue what the administration considers to be overreach on issues related to gender and diversity, equity and inclusion.

Ultimately, the administration will have to make a choice on education policy. Does it want to cede control to states and local school districts or wade into very fine-grain details over curriculum and sports and bathrooms? So far, it has opted more for the latter than the former.  

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.