The Trump administration’s sweeping plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education has ignited fierce debate across the country, with education leaders, lawmakers, and advocates warning that the shakeup could create chaos for students—especially those already at risk. Announced on November 18, 2025, the move marks the most significant overhaul of the department since its creation in 1979, transferring core functions to four other federal agencies in a bid to streamline operations and, ultimately, pave the way for the department’s elimination.
According to the Associated Press, the plan involves six new interagency agreements that will shift billions of dollars in grant programs away from the Education Department. The Department of Labor will take over some of the largest federal funding streams for K-12 schools, including the $18 billion Title I program, which supports schools serving low-income communities. In addition, Labor will now oversee teacher training, English instruction, and the TRIO program, which helps guide low-income students toward college degrees. The Department of Interior will assume responsibility for Native American education programs, while the Department of Health and Human Services will manage grants for college student-parents and foreign medical school accreditation. The State Department will take over foreign language and international studies programs, such as the Fulbright-Hays Program.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the move, stating, “The Trump Administration is taking bold action to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return education to the states. Cutting through layers of red tape in Washington is one essential piece of our final mission.” She added that the administration would continue to gather best practices from across the country and work with Congress to codify these reforms. McMahon, a longtime critic of the Education Department, has argued that it has become a bloated bureaucracy with lagging student outcomes, pointing to plummeting math and reading scores in the wake of the pandemic.
But critics have lined up to denounce the plan, warning that it threatens to disrupt the very programs designed to support the country’s most vulnerable students. Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association (NEA), did not mince words: “Donald Trump and his administration chose American Education Week, a time when our nation is celebrating students, public schools, and educators, to announce their illegal plan to further abandon students by dismantling the Department of Education. It’s cruel. It’s shameful. And our students deserve so much better.”
Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), echoed these concerns, calling the move “an abdication and abandonment of America’s future.” She argued, “Rather than show leadership in helping all students seize their potential, it walks away from that responsibility. What’s happening now isn’t about slashing red tape. If that were the goal, teachers could help them do it … Instead, spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need.”
Education advocates are particularly alarmed by the transfer of Title I funding to the Department of Labor. Denise Forte, president and CEO of The Education Trust, said, “Moving Title I, the largest federal funding stream providing important resources to the schools serving the lowest-income students in America, to the Department of Labor makes no sense.” She added, “The Trump administration began the process of selling off the Department of Education for parts. Further diminishing these offices… and sending them off to be run by agencies that work on public health and short-term training, which lack the skills, expertise, or capacity in education, isn’t about improving student outcomes. It’s about implementing a business model that transforms students into widgets instead of human beings who need support.”
California state officials have also voiced strong opposition. Tony Thurmond, California’s Superintendent of Public Instruction, called the change “unnecessary, disruptive, and going to harm students, especially the most vulnerable.” He argued that it would be less efficient for state departments and local districts to coordinate with four different federal agencies rather than one. Lupita Cortez Alcalá, executive director of Policy Analysis for California Education, warned, “Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, which was created by Congress in 1979, without a clear and comprehensive plan is a recipe for disaster—creating confusion, inefficiency, and a loss of essential expertise and institutional knowledge.”
Some, like California State Board of Education President Linda Darling-Hammond, questioned the practical impact of the agreements, describing them as “kind of interesting partnerships that don’t have what looks like particular teeth to them.” She remarked, “When you read the fine print, it says the department will still maintain oversight, and you should keep calling the same person. Now, will anybody be there to pick up the phone? That’s the question.” Darling-Hammond also noted that ongoing layoffs at the department would likely compound the challenges of implementation.
On the other hand, some conservative policy advocates support the administration’s move as a way to pressure Congress into acting. Lance Christensen, vice president of government affairs and education policy for the California Policy Center, stated, “The problem they have is that Congress hasn’t, for whatever reason, been willing to negotiate a complete shutdown of that part of education. So the administration said, ‘OK, we’re going to call your bluff.’” He acknowledged, however, that the move is unlikely to save much money, as most savings have already come from reducing the agency’s workforce.
Democratic lawmakers have raised constitutional concerns about the administration’s use of interagency agreements to bypass Congress’s authority. Senator Patty Murray, vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the move as “lawlessly trying to fulfill Project 2025’s goal to abolish the Department of Education and pull the rug out from students in every part of the country.” Representative Summer Lee, a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Education and Workforce, called the shakeup “a direct assault on the students, families, and educators who depend on its essential protections.” She emphasized, “Our children deserve better than political stunts that jeopardize their futures. And let’s be clear: an uneducated electorate isn’t a by-product of authoritarianism—it’s a prerequisite for it. We will fight back.”
For now, the Education Department will retain oversight of its $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio, funding for students with disabilities, and its Office for Civil Rights. But critics fear that these functions could be next on the chopping block, further undermining support for students with disabilities, English learners, and those who have faced discrimination. Rachel Gittleman, president of AFGE Local 252, a union representing department workers, warned, “That national mission is weakened when its core functions are scattered across other federal or state agencies that are not equipped or positioned to provide the same support and services as ED staff.”
As the dust settles, the future of federal education policy remains uncertain. The administration’s actions have set the stage for a high-stakes battle in Congress and the courts over the very structure of education governance in America. With vulnerable students’ futures hanging in the balance, all eyes are now on the next moves in Washington.
