- President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order as early as Thursday to initiate the closure of the U.S. Department of Education, aiming to fulfill his campaign promise of returning education control to the states.
- The draft order tasks Education Secretary Linda McMahon with facilitating the department's closure, citing the failure of federal control in education and the need to eliminate bureaucratic bloat.
- The push to dismantle the Education Department is a decades-long conservative objective, with critics arguing it represents federal overreach and stifles innovation. The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 outlines a detailed plan for the agency's closure.
- Fully dismantling the department requires congressional action due to legally codified functions like Title I funding and Pell Grants. Democrats vehemently oppose the move, warning it could exacerbate inequities and harm marginalized students.
In a move that has ignited fierce debate across the political spectrum, President Donald Trump is expected to sign an executive order as early as Thursday directing the closure of the U.S. Department of Education. The order, which has been in the works since Trump’s transition to office, marks a significant step in his long-standing pledge to return control of education to the states.
According to a draft of the order obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Education Secretary Linda McMahon will be tasked with “taking all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Education Department” to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” The draft order declares that “the experiment of controlling American education through Federal programs and dollars—and the unaccountable bureaucrats those programs and dollars support—has failed our children, our teachers and our families.”
This bold move underscores Trump’s commitment to shrinking the federal government’s role in education, a promise he made repeatedly on the campaign trail. “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 that you don’t want to have our youth hearing,” Trump told supporters at a rally in Wisconsin last September.
A decades-long conservative goal
The push to dismantle the Education Department is not new. Since its creation in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the department has been a lightning rod for conservative criticism. Critics argue that it represents federal overreach, stifling innovation and local control while failing to improve educational outcomes.
During the Reagan administration, efforts to abolish the department gained traction but ultimately fell short. Now, with Trump at the helm, conservatives see a renewed opportunity to achieve this long-standing goal. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a blueprint for a GOP administration, has laid out a detailed plan for closing the agency, including transferring its civil rights enforcement to the Justice Department and its student loan portfolio to the Treasury Department.
Secretary McMahon, co-founder of World Wrestling Entertainment, has embraced this mission. In an email to staffers hours after her Senate confirmation, she wrote, “This is our opportunity to perform one final, unforgettable public service to future generations of students.” She added that Trump and American voters had “tasked us with accomplishing the elimination of the bureaucratic bloat here at the Education Department—a momentous final mission—quickly and responsibly.”
What happens next?
While the executive order sets the stage for the department’s closure, fully dismantling it will require congressional action. Legal experts note that many of the department’s functions, such as administering Title I funding for low-income schools and Pell Grants, are codified in law and would need legislative approval to be transferred or eliminated.
McMahon acknowledged this during her confirmation hearing, stating, “It certainly does require congressional action.” However, she expressed confidence in securing Republican support for a plan to streamline the department’s functions. “We’d like to make sure that we are presenting a plan that I think our senators could get on board with, and our Congress could get on board with, that would have a better-functioning Department of Education,” she said.
Despite these assurances, Democrats have vehemently opposed the move. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer criticized the plan, stating, “It’s no secret that they’re aiming to abolish the Department of Education.” Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, accused Trump of disregarding the needs of all children. “Trying to abolish [the department] sends a message that the president doesn’t care about opportunity for all kids,” she said.
A Nation at a Crossroads
The debate over the Education Department's future comes at a critical juncture for American education. The U.S. ranks 20th out of 41 nations in education, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, trailing behind countries like Canada and several European nations. Test scores have also plummeted since the COVID-19 pandemic, with eighth-grade reading proficiency hitting its lowest level in 32 years.
Proponents of Trump’s plan argue that returning control to the states will foster innovation and accountability. “Let the states run the schools,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “You’ll see something, it’s gonna blow your mind, it’ll be run so well.”
Critics, however, warn that dismantling the department could exacerbate inequities, particularly for low-income and marginalized students. They point to the department’s role in enforcing civil rights protections and distributing federal aid as essential functions that cannot be easily replaced.
As the nation watches this unfolding drama, one thing is clear: the battle over the Education Department is about more than just bureaucracy—it’s a fight over the future of American education. Whether Trump’s vision of state-led reform will succeed or falter remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes could not be higher.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.