On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Education to begin the process of shutting down—a decision that has reignited fierce debate over the federal government’s role in education. However, while the order signals an effort to significantly reduce the department’s power, it remains unclear whether Trump can fully dismantle it without congressional approval.
The U.S. Department of Education was established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter through an act of Congress, meaning that it cannot be abolished by executive order alone. According to legal scholars and policymakers, the only way to fully eliminate the agency is through legislation, which would require congressional approval.
While Trump’s order directs the Secretary of Education to take “all lawful steps” to facilitate its closure, it acknowledges that the agency cannot be disbanded outright without legislative action. Several Republican lawmakers, including Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, have expressed support for the move and pledged to introduce legislation to accomplish this goal. However, such legislation would likely face stiff opposition from Democratic lawmakers and advocacy groups, many of whom argue that dismantling the department would disproportionately harm marginalized students.
The Trump administration argues that shutting down the department would return power to states, parents, and local communities, allowing for more flexibility in education policy. Supporters of the move cite stagnant student achievement scores and the belief that federal oversight has not led to significant improvements in educational outcomes.
During his announcement, Trump criticized the department as a “bureaucratic failure” and claimed that the federal government’s involvement in education has hindered progress rather than facilitated it. He pointed to declining reading and math scores among American students and suggested that states would be better equipped to manage education without federal intervention.
The executive order signing ceremony was attended by Republican governors from several states, including Florida, Texas, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee, Idaho, and Nebraska, who have expressed support for the move. These governors argue that eliminating the Department of Education would cut costs and provide states with more direct control over educational policies and funding.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker strongly opposed the executive order, stating, “President Trump has no plan to improve literacy, math scores, or get more teachers on the job. When Donald Trump attacks education, he is failing America because the success of our students is what will make our economy, future, and nation stronger.” He emphasized that eliminating the Department of Education would have “harsh and immediate impacts on Illinois’ students,” particularly those in rural communities, students with disabilities, and low-income students relying on Pell Grants for college tuition.
Though education policy is primarily determined at the state and local levels, the Department of Education plays a significant role in overseeing federal funding for K-12 and higher education, enforcing civil rights protections in schools, and managing federal student loan programs.
The department administers Pell Grants, student loan forgiveness programs, and Title I funding for low-income schools. It also oversees the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which helps ensure that students with disabilities receive appropriate educational services. Critics of Trump’s plan argue that eliminating the department would disrupt these vital programs and lead to reduced accountability in schools, particularly in areas serving low-income and minority students.
The Illinois Federation of Teachers also voiced strong opposition to Trump’s order, with President Dan Montgomery stating, “Education is the bedrock of American democracy. Eliminating the U.S. Department of Education by shuttering the agency and reassigning its duties would devastate millions of children, families, and communities.” He warned that Illinois schools would lose significant federal resources, including funding for special education services, free and reduced lunch programs, and financial aid that makes college affordable for working-class families.
If the Department of Education were to be shut down, it is unclear which agencies would take over its responsibilities. Some functions could be transferred to state governments, while others might be absorbed by existing federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services or the Department of Justice.
However, opponents argue that dismantling the department could lead to greater disparities between states in terms of educational quality, funding, and access to resources. Without federal oversight, states would have more autonomy over policies related to curriculum, teacher certification, and student assessment, but critics warn that this could exacerbate existing inequities in education, particularly for marginalized communities.
One of the most significant concerns surrounding the dismantling of the Department of Education is the potential weakening of federal protections against discrimination in education. The department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and other factors.
Under Trump’s administration, the OCR has already been significantly downsized, with regional offices closed and staff reductions implemented. If the department is eliminated, civil rights enforcement in education could become fragmented, making it harder for students and parents to seek recourse when facing discrimination. Advocacy groups have warned that the dismantling of the department could disproportionately harm students from low-income, minority, and disabled backgrounds by reducing federal oversight and funding protections.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson also expressed concern over the executive order, stating that his administration is “doing everything we can to protect our students and protect our schools from harmful policies and potential budget cuts.” Johnson warned that dismantling the Department of Education would further destabilize urban school districts that depend on federal funding for critical programs.
The federal government’s role in education has historically been critical in advancing civil rights and promoting equal access to quality education. Landmark cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) led to federal intervention in desegregating schools, while the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 provided crucial funding to schools serving disadvantaged students.
For Black and other minority communities, federal mandates have played a crucial role in ensuring access to education, from desegregation efforts in the 1960s to the enforcement of Title IX and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Critics of Trump’s plan argue that without federal oversight, states may not uphold these protections as rigorously, leading to increased educational disparities.
Illinois, for example, relies significantly on federal funding for education. In Fiscal Year 2025, public schools in Illinois are expecting $3.56 billion in federal funds, serving 1.8 million students, which accounts for approximately $1,923 per student. Additionally, Illinois is expecting to use $1.33 billion in federal funding to support more than 295,000 children receiving special education services. Governor Pritzker has warned that proposed cuts could put at risk more than $3 billion in federal funding that Illinois is expecting this summer, which he stated is something the state “cannot replace.”
While Trump’s executive order has set the stage for reducing the Department of Education’s role, the ultimate fate of the agency will depend on congressional action. With public opinion largely opposed to shutting down the department—recent polls show 60 percent of Americans disapprove of eliminating it—passing legislation to dissolve it would be a significant challenge.
Legal challenges to Trump’s executive order are also expected, with advocacy groups vowing to sue to prevent the dismantling of the agency. In the meantime, local education leaders, policymakers, and civil rights advocates are closely watching to see how the administration’s efforts will unfold and what impact they will have on students across the country.
As the debate continues, one thing is clear: the future of federal involvement in education remains uncertain, and the stakes could not be higher for millions of students, teachers, and families across the nation.
