In a bold move reshaping American education, President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 20, 2025, aimed at dismantling the federal Department of Education, a commitment he has reiterated since his campaign days. Declaring it 3a public relations office,3 Trump believes this closure will empower children and families by allowing them to escape a failing education system. The order tasks Education Secretary Linda McMahon to 3take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure3 of the department, signaling a historic shift toward state control over educational policy.
The President's order reflects a long-held belief that federal oversight in education has failed both students and teachers, stating, 3the experiment of controlling American education through Federal programs and dollars... has plainly failed our children.3 McMahon, who reaffirmed her commitment to the administration’s vision, described the action as 3history making, 3 indicating the move would 3free future generations of American students. 3
The U.S. Department of Education, established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, has primarily handled federal funding allocations to schools and education programs, including vital services for low-income students and students with disabilities. In her statements, McMahon emphasized the administration’s commitment not to discontinue funds, aiming instead to work with Congress and state leaders to ensure a lawful and orderly transition.
However, not everyone is convinced. Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont expressed concerns that dismantling the department would jeopardize the stability of public schools, highlighting the essential role of the federal government in supporting education through programs such as Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). “The president’s executive order threatens the strength and stability of our public schools by undermining the federal government’s role in supporting education,” Lamont stated.
Criticism came from various quarters, including Kate Dias, president of the Connecticut Education Association, who noted that the executive order signals a devaluation of public schooling efforts, adding that it removes the responsibilities required to ensure systemic educational coordination across the nation.
The timing of the order comes on the heels of mass layoffs within the Department of Education, which saw job cuts of roughly half its workforce just a week prior. This reduction in personnel worried many state leaders about potential setbacks in educational services, prompting a lawsuit from nearly two dozen state attorneys general, including Connecticut’s William Tong. He labeled these actions 3a reckless assault on our kids and schools across America.”
Tong voiced skepticism regarding Trump and McMahon’s plan to transfer educational funds directly to states, arguing, 3I don’t believe that for a single second. They have zero plan and no authorization to do that... We know where this money is really going — to billionaire tax breaks and Cybertrucks for diplomats.”
The impact on Connecticut, which received approximately $553 million in federal funding during the 2023-2024 school year, would be profound. This funding is vital for supporting programs aimed at low-income families and students with disabilities. U.S. Representative Jahana Hayes noted that removing federal funding obligations could lead local communities to make difficult decisions about resource allocations or increase local taxes to fill funding gaps.
With practical implications looming, Connecticut Senate leaders warned that the executive order jeopardizes federal funding that many schools depend on fiercely—especially those located in cities like Waterbury and Hartford, where a significant portion of school budgets relies on federal support. For Waterbury, for instance, 22% of local school funding comes from federal sources, which are largely aimed at addressing needs for Title I and special education.
Experts worry that the executive order would deliberately shift educational costs onto local authorities, ultimately harming students from low-income families the most. McCarthy, director of the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, warned that urban and rural districts, which are already vulnerable, could face what she termed “a terrible blow” to their funding structures.
Critics like U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy echoed similar sentiments. Blumenthal declared, 3At a time when we should be investing more resources in our students’ success, President Trump is fully abandoning what’s left of the federal government’s commitment to public education.” Murphy further stated, 3The billionaire class is rooting for the destruction of public education because they see your local elementary school as their next target to run for profit. Our kids will pay the price.”
Many are left wondering what a post-department education landscape might look like. Will critical functions, such as enforcing regulations regarding students with disabilities and investigating inequities in education, transition to state education agencies? As Anne Wicks from the George W. Bush Presidential Center noted, it remains unclear exactly how these responsibilities will be managed without federal oversight.
The absence of federal guidelines could lead states in various directions—some maintaining testing standards while others may not, raising fear among educators that many students will be left unsupported as schools attempt to navigate a funding system that is radically transformed.
In a twist, former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings commented positively about McMahon, stating that the hard work of transitioning the funding and responsibilities now falls on the shoulders of Congress, state officials, and families. The executive order to keep funding for programs like Pell Grants and Title I 3uninterrupted3 was also framed as a crucial step in this ongoing conversation.
As discussions progress about transferring educational authority back to the states, the ramifications of this order may shape the contours of American education for years to come. As the nation watches closely, the direction that state education systems take may ultimately define the outcome of educational equity and access across the country.
