As he strode into Congress for his State of the Union speech in 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan delivered a resonant message that many Republicans wanted to hear: let’s end the Department of Education. Reagan, emphasizing the need to cut out non-essential government spending, vowed to reduce the federal workforce by 75,000. For 43 years, this vision of abolishing the educational department would go unrealized. However, former President Donald Trump is now taking bold steps to shutter the department through an executive order, thereby attempting to return educational authority to the states.
According to a fact sheet provided by the White House, Trump has instructed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take "all necessary steps" to close the department, which he claims has wasted $3 trillion without improving student achievement and has imposed excessive federal control over state education.
In President Trump’s tenure, he has already moved to lay off half of the agency's workforce. While completely abolishing the department requires congressional approval—something that seems unlikely—the executive order initiates a process aimed at dismantling its broader functions. This initiative resonates with a long-standing ideological push within the Republican Party, uniting various factions from establishment Republicans to evangelical Christians and Trump supporters.
Jonathan Butcher, a seasoned education policy veteran from the Heritage Foundation, noted that the argument against the Department of Education is shared across various factions of the Republican Party. "Reagan correctly saw the philosophical and practical point that when you create an agency in Washington, it only grows in size and assumes additional responsibilities," Butcher explained, emphasizing that the department, established during the civil rights era, has indeed expanded its influence over the years.
The first U.S. Department of Education was created by President Andrew Johnson in 1867 but soon faded into relative obscurity. It was revived as a cabinet-level department under President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Since then, Republican leaders, including Reagan, have criticized it vehemently. During his presidential campaign, Reagan described the department as a "new bureaucratic boondoggle," allowing Washington to dictate how American children are educated, rather than prioritizing local needs and preferences.
Newt Gingrich, who served as House Speaker in the 1990s, challenged the department’s necessity, stating, "I do not believe we need a federal department of homework checkers.” His remarks from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities echoed sentiments that have persisted over decades, illustrating a consistent Republican critique of federal educational oversight.
Interestingly, the current political climate has injected new urgency into the debate surrounding the Department of Education due to the heightened "culture wars" prevalent in U.S. politics. Political analysts note that Trump’s administration has capitalized on these divisions to rally support for its objectives. Frederick Hess from the American Enterprise Institute highlighted that the department had become the focal point for conservative critiques, paralleling points raised as far back as the Reagan administration. “What I think is so unifying for the right is that there was always a sense that it offered a kind of one-stop access for the education 'blob' to influence policy,” he said.
However, experts warn that there exists a significant misunderstanding about the actual functions of the Department of Education and the extent of federal influence on educational outcomes. Unlike the UK’s approach to education, the U.S. department does not dictate curricula but rather allocates a fraction of funding compared to state-level counterparts. It plays a vital role in administering student loan programs and Pell grants that assist lower-income students in attending college—a concern outlined by critics who fear losing crucial financial support.
Hess metaphorically likened the entire department to a "McGuffin," a term from Alfred Hitchcock’s filmmaking, referring to an object or element that serves as a catalyst for the plot but is otherwise unimportant, emphasizing that simply abolishing the department does not eliminate red tape and regulations that encumber schools.
He pointed out that programs like Pell Grants and Title I funding for schools with large low-income populations would remain intact, even with a downsizing of the department itself, arguing that comprehensive alterations in law and requirements would be necessary for any real change. Already, Trump's push to reduce the department has faced lawsuits, indicating that any substantial changes will likely encounter significant legal hurdles.
As the administration continues to push this initiative, Democratic lawmakers have responded with severe criticism, warning that these moves could jeopardize student education, safety, and school funding. As Frederick Hess succinctly stated, “Both sides are, for different reasons, overstating the importance of downsizing or abolishing the department, and neither side is paying as much attention to the stuff that would really fundamentally change federal education.”
For supporters of this movement within the Republican Party, Trump's actions appear as a successful implementation of a campaign promise, highlighting a belief that it is essential for states, and not the federal government, to control education. Jonathan Butcher eloquently summed up the perspective of the proponents by stating, "While a move towards efficiency and streamlining, it would really do more for state's autonomy."
