10 insights into Trump's Education Department Breakup

1. What is the Trump administration doing to the Department of Education?

The administration is moving several programs from the Department of Education to other federal agencies. These include elementary and secondary education grants, higher education programs, childcare programs, Indian education programs, and international education initiatives. The shift is framed as a step toward dismantling the department while keeping oversight authority centralized within Education.

2. Which agencies are taking over these programs?

Agreements have been made with six federal agencies: the Department of Labor, Department of Interior, Health and Human Services, and the State Department. Each agency will manage specific program areas while remaining under Department of Education supervision. This redistribution represents a major restructuring of federal education responsibilities.

3. Why is the administration moving programs?

Officially closing the department requires congressional approval. By transferring programs, the administration can begin dismantling the federal education bureaucracy without waiting for legislation. This approach allows for operational continuity and minimizes immediate disruption to students and staff.

4. What happens to the department’s current employees?

According to a senior department official, oversight of these programs remains with the Department of Education, but employees working on the affected programs will have the option to transfer to the partnering agencies (like Labor or Interior) to continue their work. This follows a Supreme Court ruling in July that gave the department the green light to terminate over 1,300 employees, further shrinking the agency's footprint.

5. Is this the first time the department has outsourced its work?

No. The process began earlier this year. In September, the Department of Education moved its career, technical, and adult education grants to the Department of Labor. That move established the Labor Department as a "centralized hub" for workforce programs, creating a blueprint for the broader outsourcing announced this week.

6. Does this officially close the Department of Education?

No. Officially eliminating a federal agency requires congressional approval. While some Republican lawmakers, like Sen. Bill Cassidy, have introduced bills to shut down the agency, previous attempts have lacked sufficient support. Education Secretary Linda McMahon acknowledges that she cannot abolish the department on her own, but she aims to transfer enough responsibilities so that she becomes the "last education secretary."

7. How does this fit into Trump’s broader plan?

In March, Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to eliminate the department. The current program transfers are part of that strategy. Lawmakers like Sen. Bill Cassidy have introduced bills to close the department entirely, showing growing legislative alignment with Trump’s vision, though full congressional approval remains uncertain.

8. What about student loans?

The administration has suggested transferring the federal student-loan portfolio to another agency, but no formal plan has been announced. This remains a significant step, as student loans are a central function of the Department of Education. The timing and details of this transfer are still pending.

9. What are the concerns about this strategy?

Critics, including education policy experts and teachers, fear that gutting the central agency will jeopardize funding and create instability. Heather Stambaugh, a high school teacher, described the situation as being "thrown into a chaos loop." Opponents argue that without a centralized agency to manage federal education policy, the future of essential services and consistent oversight remains uncertain.

10. How does the administration justify its approach despite these concerns?

McMahon and Trump argue that the government can function without a centralized Education Department. McMahon cited the 43-day government shutdown as evidence, noting that schools continued operating normally, teachers were paid, and services were uninterrupted. The administration frames this as proof that states and partner agencies can manage education efficiently.