Education
Can Trump Really Abolish the Department of Education?

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that directs the federal Department of Education to come up with a plan for its own demise.
Only Congress can abolish a Cabinet-level agency, and it is not clear whether Mr. Trump has the votes in Congress to do so. But he has already begun to dismantle the department, firing about half of its staff, gutting its respected education-research arm, and vastly narrowing the focus of its civil rights division, which works to protect students from discrimination.
Mr. Trump’s long history of attacking the Department of Education represents a revival of a Reagan-era Republican talking point. It has unified Democrats in fiery opposition. But is shuttering the department possible? And if not, how has Mr. Trump begun to use the agency to achieve his policy goals?
What does the department do?
The Education Department was founded in 1979. Its main job is distributing money to college students through grants and loans. It also sends federal money to K-12 schools, targeted toward low-income and disabled students, and enforces anti-discrimination laws.
The money for schools has been set aside by Congress and is unlikely to be affected by Mr. Trump’s executive order. But oversight of the funds could be reduced and moved to other federal agencies.
Those federal dollars account for only about 10 percent of K-12 school funding nationwide. While Mr. Trump has said he wants to return power over education to the states, states and school districts already control K-12 education, which is mostly paid for with state and local tax dollars. The federal department does not control local learning standards or reading lists.
The agency does play a big role in funding and disseminating research on education, but those efforts have been significantly scaled back by the Trump administration.
It also administers tests that track whether American students are learning and how they compare with their peers in other states and countries. It is unclear whether those tests will continue to be delivered, given drastic reductions in the staff and funding necessary to manage them.
Still, closing the department would not likely have much of an immediate effect on how schools and colleges operate. The Trump administration has discussed tapping the Treasury Department to disburse student loans and grants, for instance, and Health and Human Services to administer funding for students with disabilities.
Can the Department of Education actually be closed?
Any effort to fully eliminate the department would have to go through Congress. Republican members would most likely hear opposition from superintendents, college presidents and other education leaders in their districts; schools in Republican regions rely on federal aid from the agency, just as schools in Democratic regions do.
“They are going to run into opposition,” said Jon Valant, an education expert at the Brookings Institution. “They have a laser-thin majority and a filibuster to confront in the Senate.”
Even if Congressional Republicans stuck together to support closing the agency, Dr. Valant predicted their constituents would protest, given the department’s role in distributing money from popular programs like Pell grants, which pay for college tuition, and I.D.E.A., which provides support to students with disabilities.
“It’s a very hard sell,” he said. “And I am very skeptical that is where this administration wants to spend its political capital.”
It’s worth noting that the attempt to abolish the agency is part of a larger conservative agenda to roll back the federal role in education and direct more money toward private-school vouchers and home-schooling. Trump allies have ambitions to cut the primary federal funding stream to K-12 schools, known as Title I — although doing that, too, would most likely require action from Congress.
How much power does the department have?
Even as Mr. Trump has vowed to close the department, he has begun to use the agency’s powers.
In January, the agency announced an investigation into Denver Public Schools for converting a girls’ bathroom into an all-gender facility. It is also investigating a series of conferences for students of color in the Ithaca, N.Y., public schools, and has created an “End D.E.I.” web page, encouraging individuals to report instances of “divisive ideologies and indoctrination” in schools.
In addition, Mr. Trump’s executive order on “ending radical indoctrination in K-12 schooling” directs the department to develop and disseminate “patriotic” learning materials.
It is unclear how much those orders will change practices in classrooms, given its small role in K-12 education.
The agency does issue regulations on how civil rights laws apply to various groups of students, including disabled students, L.G.B.T.Q. students, racial minorities and girls. One of the administration’s favored strategies is to argue that when schools allow transgender students to use the bathrooms or play on the sports teams of their choice, it is a violation of girls’ rights under Title IX, a law that protects students from sex discrimination.
Mr. Trump has shown less interest in other elements of civil rights law. He has fired government lawyers who investigate schools that fail to provide equal access and services to children with disabilities, for example.
Currently, more than 70 percent of the department’s $224 billion annual budget goes to the federal student aid program, which has also become a frequent Republican target. Mr. Trump is seeking to restrict public-sector loan forgiveness, and has said fewer students should attend four-year colleges.
The agency provides more than $90 billion in new loans to students annually, which are distributed by colleges and serviced by the federal government through private contractors. It also offers $39 billion in Pell Grants annually to low-income students, which generally do not need to be paid back. It administers the federal work-study program and gives grants to students who promise to work as teachers in hard-to-staff subjects or schools.
It has had opponents since the beginning.
Opposition to the Department of Education is today associated with Republicans. But the agency began its life with fierce opponents on both sides of the aisle.
President Jimmy Carter established the department, often known simply as Ed, in 1979, fulfilling a campaign promise to the nation’s largest teachers’ union, the National Education Association. He did so over the objections of his own presidential transition team and many in Congress — including fellow Democrats.
Some staunch liberals believed all of the issues affecting children — health care, cash welfare and education — should be handled by a single federal agency, then known as the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Still, over the next four decades, Ed became a part of the beltway firmament, popular with Democrats and many Republicans, too. Many of the programs Ed oversees are sources of bipartisan comity, such as funding for vocational education.
Gareth Davies, a historian who has written about the founding of the Department of Education, said the revival of conservative opposition to the agency shows “just how far the G.O.P. has moved in the past two decades, from compassionate conservatism to culture wars.”
Mike Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute think tank, and a former Department of Education staffer under President George W. Bush, called the gesture toward shuttering the agency a distraction from problems like the record-low reading scores of American students, released in January.
He suggested that Mr. Trump should host a governor’s summit in Washington to focus on the problem, particularly on the question of whether screen time is harming children’s academic abilities.
“If you wanted to solve this problem and show leadership,” he said, “you would talk about the real crisis.”

Education
Opinion | The Jewish Students Caught Up in Trump’s Antisemitism Crackdown

Given these figures, it’s not surprising that Jews have taken a leading role in the protests against Israel’s assault on Gaza. Eleven days after Oct. 7, 2023, progressive and anti-Zionist Jewish groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, gathered roughly 400 protesters, many wearing shirts that said “Not in Our Name,” and occupied a congressional building. Later that month, Jewish Voice for Peace and its allies led a takeover of New York’s Grand Central Terminal. At Brown University, the first sit-in demanding divestment from companies affiliated with Israel comprised solely Jewish students.
Jewish students are not generally as vulnerable as their Palestinian, Arab, Muslim, Black and noncitizen counterparts, but it is precisely this assumption of greater safety that may have made them more willing to protest in the first place. And many have paid a price. It’s impossible to know what percentage of the students punished for pro-Palestinian activism have been Jewish, since university disciplinary proceedings are often secret. But anecdotal evidence suggests it is significant. And regardless of one’s views about how universities should treat campus activism, there is something bizarre about repressing it in the name of Jewish safety when a number of the students being repressed are Jews.
Since Oct. 7, at least four universities have temporarily suspended or placed on probation their chapters of Jewish Voice for Peace. In 2023 at BrownU Jews for Ceasefire Now protests, 20 members were arrested. (The charges were dropped.) At a pro-Israel event at Rockland Community College at the State University of New York on Oct. 12, 2023, a Jewish student who briefly shouted “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Jews for Palestine” was reportedly suspended for the rest of the academic year. In May 2024, a Jewish tenured professor in anthropology at Muhlenberg College said she was fired after she reposted an Instagram post that declared, in part: “Do not cower to Zionists. Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable.” In September, Michigan’s attorney general brought felony charges for resisting or obstructing a police officer, as well as misdemeanor trespassing charges, against three Jewish activists — as well as four others — for offenses related to a Gaza solidarity encampment at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. (They all pleaded not guilty).
Even when protest has taken the form of Jewish religious observance, it often has been shut down. Last fall, when Jewish students opposing the war during the holiday of Sukkot built Gaza solidarity sukkahs, temporary boothlike structures in which Jews eat, learn and sleep during the holiday, at least eight universities forcibly dismantled them, or required the students to do so, or canceled approval for their construction. (The universities said that the groups were not allowed to erect structures on campus.)
Despite this, establishment Jewish pro-Israel organizations have applauded universities that have cracked down on pro-Palestinian protest. When Columbia suspended its branch of Jewish Voice for Peace alongside Students for Justice in Palestine, the A.D.L. congratulated the university for fulfilling its “legal & moral obligations to protect Jewish students.” After New Hampshire police broke up Dartmouth’s Gaza solidarity encampment, the A.D.L. thanked the college’s president for “protecting all students’ right to learn in a safe environment.” But the experience was hardly safe for Annelise Orleck, the former chair of the school’s Jewish studies program, who said she was zip-tied, body-slammed and forcibly dragged by police officers when they moved in. After the state attorney general announced that she would bring charges against demonstrators at the University of Michigan’s encampment who had allegedly violated the law, an official at the Jewish Federation of Greater Ann Arbor praised her for acting “courageously.” The A.D.L. has since reversed its prior support for the Trump administration’s detention of pro-Palestinian activists. But it still wants universities to impose tough restrictions on campus protest. When I reached out to the organization asking if it had a position on Jewish students getting swept up in campus crackdowns, representatives referred me to Mr. Greenblatt’s recent opinion essays. Each one reiterated the need to fight against what it deems campus antisemitism, but also advocated due process for all those involved.
Education
Trump Administration Opens Civil Rights Inquiry Into a Long Island Mascot Fight

Federal education officials said on Friday that they had opened a civil rights inquiry into whether New York State could withhold state money from a Long Island school district that has refused to follow a state requirement and drop its Native American mascot.
The announcement came shortly after President Trump expressed his support for the district, in Massapequa, N.Y., in its fight against complying with a state Board of Regents requirement that all districts abandon mascots that appropriate Native American culture or risk losing state funding.
The Massapequa district, whose “Chiefs” logo depicts an illustrated side profile of a Native American man in a feathered headdress, is one of several that have resisted making a change.
The name of the town, a middle-class swath of the South Shore where most residents voted for Mr. Trump in the November election, was derived from the Native American word “Marspeag” or “Mashpeag,” which means “great water land.”
In announcing the investigation, Linda McMahon, the education secretary, said that her department would “not stand by as the state of New York attempts to rewrite history and deny the town of Massapequa the right to celebrate its heritage in its schools.”
JP O’Hare, a spokesman for the state Education Department, said in a statement that state education officials had not been contacted by the federal government about the matter.
“However,” he added, “the U.S. Department of Education’s attempt to interfere with a state law concerning school district mascots is inconsistent with Secretary McMahon’s March 20, 2025, statement that she is ‘sending education back to the states, where it so rightly belongs.’”
The policy, introduced in 2022, was adopted amid a national push to change Native American mascot names or iconography through legislation and other moves.
When the ban was adopted, about five dozen New York school districts still used Native American-inspired mascots and logos. Districts were given until the end of June this year to eliminate banned mascots.
Since taking office for his second term, Mr. Trump and his administration have waged a relentless campaign against what they argue are illegal diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and have threatened entities that do not fall in line and eliminate such efforts.
The president has said he would slash funding for low-income students in states that fail to do away with such programs. New York’s Education Department was the first to publicly refuse to comply with the order.
Massapequa school leaders filed a federal lawsuit seeking to keep the “Chiefs” name, but the judge in the case recently moved closer to dismissing it after finding they had failed to provide sufficient evidence for their claims, including that the mascot qualified as protected speech.
In a social media post this week, Mr. Trump criticized New York’s policy and called for Ms. McMahon to intervene.
“Forcing them to change the name, after all of these years, is ridiculous and, in actuality, an affront to our great Indian population,” the president wrote.
In a statement included in the federal Education Department’s announcement, Kerry Watcher, the Massapequa Board of Education president, welcomed the investigation.
“Attempts to erase Native American imagery do not advance learning,” Ms. Watcher said. “They distract from our core mission of providing a high-quality education grounded in respect, history and community values.”
Education
19 States Sue the Trump Administration Over Its D.E.I. Demand in Schools

A coalition of 19 states sued the Trump administration on Friday over its threat to withhold federal funding from states and districts with certain diversity programs in their public schools.
The lawsuit was filed in federal court by the attorneys general in California, New York, Illinois, Minnesota and other Democratic-leaning states, who argue that the Trump administration’s demand is illegal.
The lawsuit centers on an April 3 memo the Trump administration sent to states, requiring them to certify that they do not use certain diversity, equity and inclusion programs that the administration has said are illegal.
States that did not certify risked losing federal funding for low-income students.
Rob Bonta, the California attorney general, said at a news conference on Friday that the Trump administration had distorted federal civil rights law to force states to abandon legal diversity programs.
“California hasn’t and won’t capitulate. Our sister states won’t capitulate,” Mr. Bonta said, adding that the Trump administration’s D.E.I. order was vague and impractical to enforce, and that D.E.I. programs are “entirely legal” under civil rights law.
The Trump administration did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday evening.
The administration has argued that certain diversity programs in schools violate federal civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs that receive federal funding.
It has based its argument on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling ending the use of race in college admissions, arguing that the decision applies to the use of race in education more broadly.
The administration has not offered a specific list of D.E.I. initiatives it deems illegal. But it has suggested that efforts to provide targeted academic support or counseling to specific groups of students amount to illegal segregation. And it has argued that lessons on concepts such as white privilege or structural racism, which posits that racism is embedded in social institutions, are discriminatory.
The lawsuit came a day after the Trump administration was ordered to pause any enforcement of its April 3 memo, in separate federal lawsuits brought by teachers’ unions and the N.A.A.C.P., among others.
Mr. Bonta said that the lawsuit by the 19 states brought forward separate claims and represented the “strong and unique interest” of states to ensure that billions of federal dollars appropriated by Congress reach students.
“We have different claims that we think are very strong claims,” he said.
Loss of federal funding would be catastrophic for students, said Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, an adversary of President Trump who previously won a civil fraud case against him.
She noted that school districts in Buffalo and Rochester rely on federal funds for nearly 20 percent of their revenue and said she was suing to “uphold our nation’s civil rights laws and protect our schools and the students who rely on them.”
-
News1 week ago
Harvard would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s playbook. Trump should avoid Biden’s. | Opinion
-
Politics7 days ago
Video: Hegseth Attacks the Media Amid New Signal Controversy
-
Culture5 days ago
New Poetry Books That Lean Into Calm and Joy Amid Life’s Chaos
-
News1 week ago
Maps: Where Do Federal Employees Work in America?
-
Technology1 week ago
Pete Hegseth reportedly spilled Yemen attack details in another Signal chat
-
Politics1 week ago
Pope Francis and US presidents: A look back at his legacy with the nation's leaders
-
World1 week ago
New Zealand’s minor gov’t party pushes to define women by biological sex
-
Politics1 week ago
JD Vance has ‘exchange of opinions’ on issues like deportations during meeting with top Vatican official