Experts Warn: Trump’s Plan to Erase Education Department May Be More Myth Than Reality

President-elect Donald Trump’s ambition to abolish the U.S. Department of Education is fraught with complexity. As he envisions a shift in educational policy, the logistical challenges, the need for bipartisan congressional support, and the restructuring of federal programs pose significant hurdles.

Experts suggest that actual progress in dismantling the department is unlikely within Congress. Derek Black, an education law scholar at the University of South Carolina, expressed skepticism about passing legislation that would fully defund or eliminate the agency. He noted, “What you can see more easily is that maybe you give the agency less money or shrink its footprint.” The existing framework, with its various tasks and personnel, would complicate any aggressive attempts to disband the department entirely.

The federal Department of Education plays a crucial role, primarily by providing funding to low-income school districts and overseeing student aid programs. Reducing or removing the department would necessitate the transfer of these responsibilities to other agencies, as highlighted by Rachel Perera of the Brookings Institution. She raised questions about whether those agencies would be adequately resourced to handle the additional workload.

Adding to the debate, Senator Mike Rounds recently introduced legislation aiming to eliminate the department while reallocating its programs. Rounds asserted, “the federal Department of Education has never educated a single student,” emphasizing a view that the department is redundant.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 further outlines a strategy for dismantling the department by redistributing its programs and cutting those viewed as ineffective. Although Trump has distanced himself from this conservative framework, some of his former administration officials contributed to its development. The proposal advocates for returning more educational authority to state governments, suggesting that federal funds should instead be granted directly to states for flexible use.

Title I funding is a vital program administered by the department, aimed at supporting districts with high concentrations of low-income students. Black pointed out that scrapping such funding without any political repercussions seems improbable. He remarked, “Rural states, our red states—depend on that money just as much, if not more.” The potential loss of these funds raises significant concerns about bipartisan support for radical changes.

Recently, Trump nominated Linda McMahon, a former WWE CEO and Small Business Administration head, as his Secretary of Education. If confirmed, she will be instrumental in executing a vision that includes universal school choice and a reduction in federal education oversight.

Trump’s education strategy presents contradictions. While he aims to reduce federal intervention, his proposals could inadvertently reassert control through funding mechanisms tied to specific educational policies. Perera pointed out the “inherent logical inconsistencies” in this approach, as it conflicts with his goal of dismantling the federal education apparatus while seeking to impose certain conditions on education funding.