Decimation of the US Department of Education Looms in Trump 2.0 regime: How Real is the Threat? Mixed Reactions Emerge

In his 2024 campaign, Donald J. Trump has stirred debate by proposing to dismantle the US Department of Education, drawing mixed reactions and triggering concerns about the future of American education. Here, we break down the feasibility of Trump’s promise, the Department’s contested history, and the potential impact on students and the broader educational landscape.
Trump’s promise to “bring education back to the states”
Throughout his campaign, Trump criticized the Department of Education (DOE) for promoting what he described as extreme ideologies on race and gender, claiming that education decisions should return to state control. “We will move everything back to the states, where it belongs,” Trump declared, resonating with supporters who favor local oversight over federal intervention.
His supporters believe state-managed education would be tailored to community values, as reflected in a tweet which shows Senator Rick Scott saying: “Why do we have the Department of Education? Why? Our states should be doing that.”

A long history of political opposition
The Department of Education’s journey has been tumultuous since its establishment in 1979 by President Jimmy Carter, fulfilling a promise to the National Education Association. Despite its foundation, the Department has faced opposition from both political parties, including members of Carter’s own administration.
Critics argue that federal involvement in education is inefficient and misaligned with community needs, as one tweet remarked: “For over 200 years we didn’t have a department of education. Jimmy Carter gave us the DOE… I’m betting we would survive another 200 years without it.”

Currently, “Project 2025,” a conservative plan associated with Trump’s campaign, outlines strategies for abolishing the DOE. Despite Trump’s formal distance from the project, his supporters see the plan as a pathway to fulfilling his promise.
Could the Department of Education actually be dissolved?
Technically, the answer is yes, but it’s complicated. Shutting down a federal agency like the Department of Education requires Congressional approval, a hurdle that even Trump would find challenging. Political analysts, such as Don Kettl, professor emeritus at the University of Maryland, speaking to media outlet Vox explain that restructuring would demand significant Congressional backing, especially given the DOE’s role in national student loan programs and federal funding for K-12 schools. This complexity leaves many questioning whether Trump’s proposal is feasible or merely rhetorical.
Some skeptics highlight that abolishing the Department could inadvertently create more bureaucracy, as other federal agencies or states might inherit its responsibilities, potentially adding layers of oversight. This concern was echoed on social media: “Ironically, dismantling the Department of Education will lead to more bureaucracy, not less. Responsibilities will shift to other federal agencies or to the states.”

Potential Repercussions for Students and Schools
The consequences of dissolving the DOE could be profound. Federal programs like Title I, which supports low-income students, would either shift to other agencies or cease entirely, potentially reducing access to educational resources for disadvantaged communities. Similarly, federal grants and loans, essential for college students, could face significant disruptions. Former educators and parents worry that low-income children and students with disabilities would be especially vulnerable, as federal funding often supports programs designed to help these groups.
Proponents of the plan argue, however, that abolishing the Department would return financial control to states, potentially freeing up funds for local needs. For instance, a tweet claimed that Michigan alone could receive $2.5 billion back for local schools, equating to an extra $1,771 per student.

Yet, critics, including former principals, counter that the DOE’s oversight provides necessary consistency across the US, ensuring baseline educational standards and safeguarding student rights. A retired principal tweeted: “Local boards should be in charge… but federal funding often supports necessary programs we couldn’t fund otherwise.”

The Path Forward: What’s Next for DOE under Trump 2.0?
As the debate over the Department of Education continues, the stakes for students, parents, and educators remain high. Whether Trump succeeds or not, his stance has reignited discussions on the role of federal oversight in education, with opinions sharply divided. For many, the question remains: can the US maintain educational standards and equity without federal involvement, or would a decentralized model deepen disparities?
With reactions ranging from excitement over state autonomy to fears of lost support for disadvantaged students, Trump’s proposal has stirred a complex, nationwide conversation.