A possible executive order by President Trump declaring his intent to abolish the U.S. Department of Education is grabbing headlines today. The move sounds dramatic, even revolutionary, but when you dig into the details, it becomes clear that the actual impact may be far less sweeping than it appears at first glance.
Despite the bold rhetoric, an executive order does not have the power to eliminate the Department of Education on its own. That would require an act of Congress—something that is far from a given, considering the political and logistical hurdles involved. Moreover, most of the department’s budget funds popular programs, and there’s no indication that those programs will be cut. Instead, they would likely be shifted to other parts of the government, meaning the federal role in education would persist under a different structure.
What Would Trump’s Executive Order Actually Mean?
To understand the impact, it’s important to separate rhetoric from reality. The executive order itself does not abolish the Department of Education. It simply directs officials to draft a plan for dismantling the department and reallocating its responsibilities elsewhere.
The Department of Education was created by Congress in 1979, meaning that legally eliminating it would require congressional action. With the current political landscape—including a closely divided Senate—getting the 60 votes needed to pass such legislation is unlikely.
Additionally, the executive order does not defund the programs that the Department of Education oversees. Instead, its key responsibilities, such as federal student aid, special education funding, and civil rights enforcement, would be reassigned to other departments. For example:
The Department of the Treasury would likely oversee federal student loans.
The Department of Justice would take on civil rights enforcement in education.
The Departments of Commerce and Labor could handle various workforce-related education programs.
So while the department itself might disappear on paper, the federal government’s role in education would largely remain intact—just redistributed across different agencies.
Where Does the Money Go?
The Department of Education’s budget for fiscal year 2024 is $268 billion, with the vast majority of that money going to programs that enjoy broad bipartisan support.
Federal Student Aid ($160 billion): This includes Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, and work-study programs. Pell Grants alone support more than one-third of undergraduate college students.
K-12 Funding ($32.6 billion): This includes Title I funding ($18.4 billion) for low-income schools and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding ($14.2 billion) for special education.
Other Federal Education Spending: The National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program are run by the Department of Agriculture, meaning federal education-related funding isn’t limited to the Department of Education.
Given these numbers, the challenge for those advocating for abolition is clear: While the department itself is a frequent target of conservative criticism, the programs it administers are widely used and politically untouchable.
Would Eliminating the Department of Education Change Anything?
The push to eliminate the Department of Education is not new. Many Republicans have long argued that education policy should be handled at the state and local level, rather than dictated by federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. However, history suggests that even if the department is formally dismantled, its core functions will live on elsewhere in the government.
For example, Betsy DeVos, Trump’s former Secretary of Education, proposed a plan to abolish the department by shifting its responsibilities to other agencies, but she never suggested ending the programs themselves. Similarly, Project 2025, a conservative policy roadmap, suggests redistributing federal education programs across multiple agencies rather than eliminating them.
At her confirmation hearing, Education Secretary Linda McMahon confirmed that Trump’s goal is not to defund education programs but to make them “operate more efficiently.” But shifting programs from one department to another doesn’t necessarily make them more efficient—it just changes who oversees them.
Federal Funding for Public Schools
While most K-12 education funding comes from state and local sources, federal dollars still play an important role—particularly in lower-income states. In the 2021–22 school year, federal funds accounted for 14% of total public school funding, but that percentage varied widely:
Mississippi (23.2%) received the highest share of its public school funding from federal sources.
New York (7.3%) received the lowest.
Red states like Arkansas, South Dakota, and Montana rely more heavily on federal education funding than blue states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey.
This reliance on federal dollars means that simply abolishing the Department of Education without maintaining funding streams could cause significant disruption in some states. Since Trump’s plan does not involve cutting funding, the real-world impact may be minimal beyond bureaucratic restructuring.
The Bottom Line
Trump’s executive order to eliminate the Department of Education is a headline-grabber, but its practical effects are much smaller than they sound. Because abolishing the department requires an act of Congress, and because most of its funding goes to widely popular programs, the most likely outcome is a bureaucratic reshuffling rather than a fundamental change in federal education policy.
.jpeg)
