On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order in the White House East Room, initiating a significant shift in American education policy by starting the process to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
Joined by students, educators, and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, Trump acted on a key promise from his 2024 campaign, appealing to those who favor reducing federal oversight in education. We’ll examine the origins, immediate effects, broader context, and potential future of this policy move.
The Executive Order
The executive order, signed on March 20, instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin phasing out the Department of Education, aiming to shift education policy control to states and local governments. Trump presented it as a cost-saving measure that could halve education expenses while enhancing standards by reducing federal bureaucracy. While some programs (like special education funding and student loans) are preserved and slated for reassignment to other agencies, the order signals a major reduction in the department’s role. Fully eliminating the agency, however, requires Congressional approval, which Trump currently lacks the votes to achieve.
The signing ceremony featured Trump displaying the order alongside students who signed mock versions, with McMahon, confirmed as Secretary on March 3, present. The administration had already taken steps, including a March 11 announcement cutting over 1,300 employees, nearly half the department’s 4,200 staff, and ending leases on regional offices in cities like New York and Chicago. These actions align with the executive order’s intent to scale back the agency significantly.
Zeitgeist
The conversation ranges from support for the reduction of federal control to concerns about its effects on students, with news outlets like Reuters and AP amplifying the story through real-time updates. The March 11 layoffs, McMahon’s confirmation, and the executive order itself have fueled a broad conversation about education’s future.
People highlight varied perspectives: some praise the move as a step toward local autonomy, aligning with Trump’s claim of improving education by cutting federal involvement, while others question the practicality and consequences for the 49.6 million public school students and over 8 million FAFSA applicants for 2025–26.
The Department’s Evolution
The Department of Education began as a small federal office in 1867 under President Andrew Johnson, only to be downgraded a year later amid concerns about federal overreach. It became a Cabinet-level agency in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, driven by Cold War competition, poverty reduction efforts, and civil rights advancements. Today, it manages a $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio, distributes Title I funds to low-income schools, enforces anti-discrimination laws, and gathers national education data, functions focused on support rather than curriculum control.
Calls to dismantle it have persisted among some groups, who see it as an example of excessive federal authority. Trump’s order aligns with proposals like the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which advocates phasing out Title I funding and converting programs into state block grants a vision partially enacted here.
Immediate Impacts
The executive order’s early effects are evident but constrained by its scope. The March 11 layoffs reduced staff significantly, with McMahon calling the cuts “thoughtful” and offering severance, three months’ pay plus up to $25,000 for voluntary exits. Over $600 million in grants have been cut, according to administration sources, though details are limited. Student loans and special education programs are set to continue, possibly under agencies like Treasury or Commerce, but the transition remains unclear.
For students and borrowers, daily operations are largely unchanged for now. The 2025–26 FAFSA is still active, and loan repayment terms hold steady, though future processing raises questions. The department’s role in civil rights enforcement also faces uncertainty, with potential shifts in oversight still undefined.
Stakeholders
States stand to gain greater control over education policy, appealing to governors and local boards seeking flexibility. Advocates of reduced federal involvement see it as a chance to streamline a system Trump has called inefficient.
Public school students in underfunded areas, reliant on Title I and IDEA funds, could face changes if full closure occurs. Borrowers might encounter administrative challenges, and national data collection efforts could shift or diminish.
Can Trump secure Congressional support? Early signs suggest resistance, complicating full elimination. What happens to data like that from the National Center for Education Statistics? How will states, with differing capacities, manage new responsibilities? The U.S. ranks average on global PISA scores (18 out of 85), will this shift improve or hinder that standing?
The Pushback
Opposition is emerging. Teachers’ unions, such as the National Education Association, are preparing legal challenges, with social media posts signaling intent to fight in court. Lawmakers from both parties acknowledge the need for Congressional action, but past attempts to abolish the department have stalled. The order’s lack of detail could invite legal scrutiny, though reducing staff and funding falls within executive authority.
The Path Ahead
A February 2025 Gallup Poll found only 24% of Americans satisfied with U.S. education quality, down from 37% in 2017, a sentiment Trump taps into. A March 13 rally in Washington, D.C., supporting the department indicates counter-support. Opinions are split down party lines: some favor a state-driven approach, others worry about consistency and resources.
Congress holds the next move. A GOP senator plans legislation to formalize the closure, but bipartisan hurdles remain. Without legislative backing, Trump’s order cuts deeply but doesn’t fully dissolve the agency. The Department of Education persists, albeit weakened, as its fate unfolds.
Final Take
Trump’s March 20, 2025, executive order marks a pivotal moment, driving “Department of Education” into sparking national debate. It advances a vision of reduced federal control, challenges the status quo for millions of students, and tests legislative resolve. As of March 21, the outcome remains fluid, part policy shift, part political signal. Whether it redefines education or falters in gridlock, its impact will shape discussions on governance and learning for years to come.
