The author would like to thank Lynn Eisenberg, Toby Merrill, and Jennifer Rodriguez for their invaluable research assistance.
President Donald Trump is reportedly preparing to issue one or multiple Executive Orders (EOs) aimed at ultimately eliminating the department of Education. The EO or EOs seek to rapidly gut the department by reducing staff and eliminating or moving key functions, while directing the department to develop a legislative plan to abolish it altogether.
During his Campaign, Trump pledged to eliminate the Education Department “very early in the administration.” Project 2025, which so far has provided the policy blueprint for Trump’s second term, adopted this position and detailed where different pieces of the department might be shifted if it were shuttered. Despite some support from some Republican elected officials, it is unlikely that Congress would pass a bill abolishing the department altogether. To pass in the Senate, any bill would require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance to a final vote, meaning at least seven Democrats would need to support the bill, which is inconceivable.
With Trump’s goal to fully eliminate the department out of reach for the time being, the more immediate question is what authorities the president has to close offices within the department and shift key functions to other executive branch agencies. In short, many of the department’s offices, including those reportedly targeted by the Trump administration such as the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Federal Student Aid (FSA), were established by statute and can only be eliminated or have their functions delegated to other agencies through an act of Congress. Moreover, any transition of these functions would disrupt essential services that American students depend on.
Why and how was the Department of Education established?
In his 1978 State of the Union address, President Jimmy Carter advocated for the creation of a cabinet-level education department to improve American education and consolidate the various educational programs spread across the federal government. In 1979, with bipartisan support, Congress created the Department of Education through the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA), in order “to strengthen the Federal commitment to ensuring access to equal educational opportunity for every individual.” The DEOA shifted numerous programs from what is now the Department of Health and Human Services to the newly-created Department of Education, as well as functions from the Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Carter signed the DEOA into law, declaring that a dedicated cabinet secretary would enable these education programs to operate effectively.
The Department now receives over $268 billion in annual appropriations from Congress, with funding levels specified for the department’s specific programs. Since its creation, the department has played a critical role in administering programs and services that ensure all children can succeed–keeping schools open and afterschool programs available, ensuring children with disabilities have access to education, standing up for kids being harassed or bullied, and helping families pay for college and career training.
Can a President dismantle the Department of Education through an Executive Order?
No, Trump cannot dismantle the department by EO. Because the department was created by Congress, it can only be closed or its functions transferred by an act of Congress. Moreover, Congress has mandated that many programs specifically be administered by the Education Department. These programs can only be moved or abolished by an act of Congress. Below I address three of the largest ED programs rumored to be targets of the Trump administration and explain why they cannot be eliminated or moved, short of legislative action.
Funding for K-12 Programs
The Trump Administration has reportedly taken aim at two major sources of funding for K-12 schools across the country – Title I and IDEA.
Title I
Section 204 of the Department of Education Organization Act (DEOA) created the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). OESE’s is tasked by Congress with administering Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which provides supplemental funding to low-income school districts. The amount each school district gets depends primarily on local poverty estimates updated annually by the Census Bureau. The Education Department uses four different funding formulas required by law to distribute this money, and annual appropriations bills specify the portions to be allocated to states and LEAs under each formula.
Reports suggest an Executive Order might try to move Title I-A funding to Health and Human Services (HHS) as “no strings attached” block grants to states, as Project 2025 proposed. However, the president cannot legally do this. Section 301(2) of DEOA authorizes the Secretary of the Education Department to administer the ESEA, including Title I-A. Changing the agency responsible for administering Title I-A would require legislative changes. An EO that purports to abolish OESE or to shift Title I-A funding to HHS exceeds the legal authority of the president and usurps Congress’s authority.
Title I-A grants can be used for a broad array of programs to improve education quality and help ensure that all children meet state academic standards, preserving state and local authority over education. The ESSA, the most recent major legislative change to K-12 funding, rolled back much of the federal government’s role in education policy and gave new leeway to the states. This means that the “strings attached” the Trump administration seeks to eliminate are basic mechanisms for accountability and transparency for parents and communities, such as requiring states to measure performance in reading, math, and science, to publish a “State Report Card” online, to publish “per pupil expenditures,” and to provide comprehensive support and improvement to their lowest performing 5 percent of schools.
Project 2025 also proposed phasing out Title I-A funding over the next decade. Eliminating Title I-A funding would have dire consequences for America’s students, particularly schools serving low-income families. Title I-A is the largest source of federal funding for K-12 schools, supplying $18.4 billion in the FY2024 federal budget. This funding goes to every state and supports low-income students in nearly 2 of every 3 public schools. A recent analysis by the Center for American Progress found that eliminating Title I-A “would decimate more than 180,000 teacher positions and negatively affect the academic outcomes of 2.8 million vulnerable students across the country.” Louisiana would experience the greatest loss, with more than 12 percent of its teachers terminated; nearly 10 percent of teacher jobs would be lost in some states, including Alabama, Arizona, Mississippi, and Florida. Fewer teachers result in overcrowded classrooms, reduced school programs, and ultimately harm to students – particularly those in low-income communities.
IDEA
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was established by Congress in 1975 to ensure children with disabilities receive appropriate educational services. Congress transferred administration of IDEA to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) at the Education Department when it created the department through the DEOA. IDEA provides federal funding for programs that support special education and early intervention services for over 7 million children with disabilities. Schools receiving IDEA funds must comply with conditions that provide educational and procedural guarantees for children with disabilities and their families, such as the provision of a free appropriate public education. In FY 2024, OSERS distributed over $15 billion in grants to support states, local education authorities, and schools in meeting their obligations to students with disabilities under the IDEA. OSERS monitors and supports states’ implementation of IDEA, including by providing written guidance to parents, educators, and state educational agencies.
Reports suggest that the Trump administration is considering moving IDEA funding to HHS and converting the funding to “a no-strings formula block grant […] distributed directly to local education agencies.” As with the administration of Title I-A, changing the agency responsible for administering IDEA would require legislative changes. A president lacks legal authority to shift IDEA funding to HHS through an EO; only Congress could make such a change through legislation.
The proposed changes would severely impact IDEA services, leading to funding disruptions, weakened protections, and inconsistent provision of special needs programs. The funding structure proposed by the Trump administration would remove federal accountability to ensure states and LEAs are using IDEA funding to meet the needs of children with disabilities. Moreover, the chaos created by transferring these services across agencies would disrupt critical support for students with disabilities. Transferring oversight to states could weaken protections for students with disabilities and leave families with fewer options to secure services or pursue legal action – ultimately leading to disparities in education quality and access.
Protecting Students from Discrimination
Congress created the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) within the department to protect the rights of students and, when necessary, enforce civil rights in schools. OCR is one of the largest civil rights enforcement agencies in the U.S. OCR enforces laws that prohibit discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. This includes discrimination on the basis of disability, race, color, national origin and sex. OCR also collects key civil rights data from schools related to students’ access to educational opportunity through the Civil Rights Data Collection. Only Congress may dissolve or transfer these congressionally mandated functions from the department’s OCR to other agencies.
Through its guidance, investigations, and enforcement, OCR is a resource for students, parents, and schools, and provides a federal backstop to ensure compliance with civil rights laws across the country – so all children can learn free from discrimination, no matter in which state they live. OCR issues guidance and technical assistance to students, families, and schools on their rights and obligations under the civil rights laws it enforces. Students and families are able to file complaints of discrimination directly with OCR, which investigates the allegations and, if concerns are identified, works with the school to remedy any violations and prevent them from recurring. OCR received over 22,000 complaints in the last fiscal year. Situated in the Department of Education – not a prosecutorial agency – OCR is best positioned to work with students and schools to resolve these complaints and help schools come into compliance, creating safer school communities for all. Moving OCR’s work over to the Department of Justice and resolving civil rights complaints only through litigation, as has been speculated, would shift the focus from regulatory compliance to prosecution. At a minimum, this would make it harder for students and families seeking to pursue civil rights violations and would likely introduce barriers to achieving voluntary resolutions with schools. Eliminating OCR’s role in enforcing civil rights and helping schools come into compliance risks harming students and families facing discrimination.
Federal Student Loans and Grants for Higher Education
The Department also administers federal student loans and grants, ensuring every student can obtain post-secondary education regardless of financial need. The federal student aid program currently administered by the department was established in large part by the Higher Education Act of 1965, signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson and amended by Congress numerous times over the past sixty years. In 1998, Congress created the office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) to administer student aid. In doing so, Congress directed the department to operate FSA in a specific way, with a particular management structure, compensation system, and goals. Congress mandated that FSA operate within the department itself, with policy set by, and oversight provided by, the Secretary of Education. Today, FSA processes over 17 million applications for aid each year. Congress created this system and only Congress can abolish it.
If Trump attempts to eliminate FSA through an EO, reports speculate that federal student loan programs would be shifted to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. During Trump’s first term, his administration considered this move, but ultimately did not make any major modifications to the government’s role in administering student loans. Significant changes to FSA could lead to a reduction in or elimination of Congressionally-mandated financial aid programs and loan forgiveness plans, such as the Pell Grant and Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF). Nearly a dozen student loan and federal aid programs administered by the Department of Education are reportedly under consideration for elimination by the Trump administration. These programs have long enjoyed bipartisan support because cuts to financial aid block low-income students from attending college. Eliminating federal aid would force many students to rely on private lenders, who may deny loans to those most in need.
What will happen next if Trump attempts to dismantle the Department of Education through an EO?
An EO that purports to dismantle the Department of Education or any of its key functions is sure to be challenged in court and subject to significant Congressional oversight. Legal challenges against the Trump administration’s action at the department have already been filed. Democrats in Congress have already expressed outrage at the Trump Administration’s management of the department, most recently when more than a dozen House Democrats were barred from entering the department’s headquarters. The day before, sixteen Senate Democrats sent a letter to the department demanding answers as to what data the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) scraped from the Department’s servers and how the administration is ensuring that students’ and families’ sensitive data is being protected.
While the Courts and Congress work out challenges to an EO that purports to diminish or close the department, rumors of efforts to abolish ED have sparked fear and uncertainty for students, families, and teachers across the country. With funding for K-12 education, protections for students with disabilities, student loans, and other critical services the department provides all at risk, programs and services depended on by America’s schools and students will, at minimum, experience disruptions, and are likely to suffer negative consequences that will hurt students and teachers.
(Editor’s note: This article is part of the Collection: Just Security’s Coverage of the Trump Administration’s Executive Actions.)