President Donald Trump has set his sights on eliminating the Department of Education, following through on a long-standing Republican goal to dismantle the agency, which has been in place since 1979. Critics, however, warn that this effort could harm the educational system, particularly for vulnerable students, and may not achieve the cost savings proponents hope for.
In a recent executive order, Trump described the department as “wasteful” and criticized the U.S. education system’s performance despite substantial spending. “The U.S. spends more on education than any other country, yet ranks near the bottom in success,” Trump stated, arguing that returning control to the states would yield better outcomes.
However, critics emphasize that the Department of Education is integral in ensuring equal access to education, particularly for marginalized groups. The department is responsible for managing federal funding, enforcing civil rights laws, and overseeing crucial programs such as Pell Grants and Title I funding for low-income schools. These programs, Trump claims, will be preserved, but redistributed to other agencies—a move that raises concerns about the loss of a unified mission to support American students, especially those with disabilities or from low-income backgrounds.
Advocates for maintaining the department argue that dismantling it could erode these protections. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) voiced his concern, stating, “For the working class of this country, high-quality public education is an imperative if their kids are going to do well in life.” The reduction in federal funding could have a disproportionately negative impact on students from vulnerable backgrounds, such as homeless children who rely on meal programs supported by the department.
In addition to concerns about educational equity, critics point to potential inefficiencies in splitting responsibilities across various agencies. The department’s extensive oversight of student loans and civil rights enforcement could become fragmented, resulting in a lack of coordination.
Supporters of the plan argue that the department’s bureaucracy and spending are excessive, with some pointing to its diminished workforce following a series of terminations and buyouts under the Trump administration. However, the proposed changes are not likely to result in significant cost savings that are sustainable in the long term, given the need to redistribute resources and maintain essential programs.
While President Trump’s executive order marks a step toward dismantling the department, the move would require Congressional action to fully eliminate it. Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) has announced plans to introduce legislation to eliminate the department, but this remains a contentious issue with substantial pushback from Democrats and education advocates.
Ultimately, the fate of the Department of Education hinges on a balance between fiscal conservatism and the need to protect vulnerable students. As debates continue, the potential fallout from these changes could have long-lasting effects on the U.S. education system.
