Recent efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education have gained momentum, as Republican lawmakers reintroduce bold legislative proposals aimed at abolishing the agency. This push aligns with former President Donald Trump’s long-standing criticism of the federal education bureaucracy, and it reflects broader conservative concerns about the effectiveness of federal oversight.
On Friday, Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky took significant steps by reintroducing H.R. 899, dubbed "to Terminate the Department of Education." This bill presents just one sentence: "The Department of Education say terminate on December 31, 2026." During his announcement, Massie declared, "Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development." He underscored the necessity of allowing parents the freedom to choose educational avenues, whether home schooling, public schooling, or private schooling.
This legislative initiative, which boasts 27 co-sponsors including prominent conservatives like Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, reflects the underlying sentiment among some lawmakers who advocate for reduced federal government involvement in education. Massie referenced former President Ronald Reagan's perspective on this issue, arguing, "We cannot only reduce the budget but also make sure local needs and preferences determine the education of our children, rather than the wishes of Washington.”
Massie first introduced similar legislation back in February 2017. Since then, the desire to significantly cut or abolish the Department of Education has persisted, especially among some Republicans who view its role as bloated and ineffective. Critics point to concerns over declining educational performance and the federal department's handling of billions of dollars intended for K-12 education, which has not translated to improved learning outcomes. Recently released results from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress confirmed longstanding fears around academic performance among American students, highlighting "heartbreaking" levels of learning loss exacerbated by pandemic disruptions.
The Trump administration seems poised to support these initiatives, considering reports of potential executive actions to gut many functions of the Department of Education. A Wall Street Journal article indicated discussions within Trump's circle include efforts to repurpose certain federally funded educational programs, possibly shifting responsibilities to state governments. An official remarked, “The president plans to fulfill the campaign promise by reevaluaitng the future of the Department of Education,” reinforcing Trump’s commitment to localize education.
During his presidency, Trump was explicit about his intentions. At campaign rallies, he voiced his eagerness to eliminate the federal education apparatus, stating, "We will drain the government education swamp and stop the abuse of your taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s youth with all sorts of things you don’t want them hearing."
Notably, discussing the anticipated legislation, Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota offered similar sentiments, arguing against federal authority over education decisions. He noted, “The federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic department.” Rounds also introduced complementary legislation to the Senate last November, echoing the reintroduction of Massie's bill.
Despite the swell of support behind the legislative pushes, there are considerable challenges to realize such drastic changes. Full abolition of the Department of Education would necessitate significant shifts within Congress, where the Senate majority could block attempts to curtail the agency. Observers note the likelihood of facing opposition from Democrats who would mobilize their influence to advocate for the department's continued existence.
The dynamics of this situation are even more complex when considering the scope of responsibilities undertaken by the Department of Education, which oversees various functions, including managing the federal student loan portfolio exceeding $1 trillion. Disbanding the agency entirely could disrupt countless services used by millions of Americans, particularly student loan borrowers.
Proponents of reform claim moving educational programs out of federal oversight could give local communities more say over policies affecting students. Conversely, opponents warn of the potential chaos stemming from dismantling the agency, especially if core programs like financial aid and student loan services are jostled around within the government bureaucracy. For example, if financial aid programs were transferred to the Department of Treasury, concerns arise over how such changes could delay processing and result in greater confusion for borrowers.
The predicted fallout from significant staffing cuts could compound the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Department of Education. Recent reports indicated dozens of department employees were placed on leave, allegedly as punishment for attending diversity training under the earlier Trump administration. With institutional knowledge dissipated due to layoffs, any functioning remnants of the department may struggle to maintain efficacious operations.
Echoing concern for students and borrowers alike, the Student Debt Crisis Center has highlighted the possible repercussions of abolishing the department and transferring responsibilities to federal agencies with less experience. The center warned such moves might exacerbate instability, leading to administrative errors and compounded struggles for individuals already experiencing challenges with the current student loan system.
While the ambitions to dismantle the Department of Education paint broad strokes of change, the path remains laden with obstacles. Without consensus, the viability of such legislative moves may waver, leaving many to speculate about the future structure of America’s education system.