What Happens if the Department of Education Goes Away?
In March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to essentially abolish the department she runs. "Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them," reads Trump's order. "Ultimately, the Department of Education's main functions can, and should, be returned to the States."
Actually killing the department requires congressional approval. McMahon has, though, moved to at least shrink it. Shortly before Trump signed the executive order, she cut its staff in half following almost 2,000 layoffs and buyouts. "This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system," McMahon said in a March press release.
While McMahon can't erase the Education Department on her own, Congress could step in and administer a coup de grâce. What that would look like isn't exactly clear. The department directs a wide range of federal programs and commanded a budget of more than $200 billion last year. It administers the behemoth federal student loan program, enforces federal law in education, and gives grants to public K-12 schools and universities, not to mention running a battery of smaller programs.
Abolishing the department, however, would not necessarily mean abolishing its functions.
"Most of the discussion from the administration and in Congress is about moving Department of Education functions to other departments," says Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom. "If that is what is done, it will not change what the federal government does in education, only which agencies do those things."
According to McCluskey, federal funding to K-12 schools and colleges would likely just move to another department, though he notes there are "proposals to consolidate, at least, programs and turn them into block grants to states, which would cut down on bureaucratic compliance costs." The federal student loan program "would likely go to the Treasury Department or possibly the Small Business Administration, both of which have experience with financial instruments, including loans," he adds.
"Almost everything the Department of Education does is unconstitutional," McCluskey says. "The Constitution gives the federal government only specific, enumerated powers, and authority to govern in education is not among them. So almost all the spending and activities should go away."
McCluskey does see a few exceptions. "First, under the 14th Amendment, the federal government has a responsibility to enforce civil rights, especially discrimination by government—states and school districts. This includes sex-based discrimination, which is addressed by Title IX. Washington has often taken this authority too far, with excessive investigations and peeling away rights for people accused of sexual assault at educational institutions, but the basic authority to act is there." He also points out the federal government has authority over the military, the District of Columbia, and Native American tribal lands, meaning that "the feds could supply funding for D.C., military, or Native American families to choose private schools and be within constitutional bounds."
McCluskey also thinks that while the federal student loan program inflates college costs and should be eliminated, the program shouldn't be shuttered overnight. "The programs could be phased out over a few years," he says, "because people make long-term plans to pay for college based on these loans existing, and suddenly ending them would be very disruptive for students and schools alike."
If Congress really did abolish the Education Department, most of what the department does would likely stick around, for better or for worse. But it would at least "end a cabinet-level education department, which is grossly unconstitutional and a direct conduit to the president for education special interests," according to McCluskey. "It would also be symbolically important, sending a message that education is not a federal responsibility."
The post What Happens if the Department of Education Goes Away? appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans respond to Israel's strikes on Iran: ‘Game on'
Republican lawmakers welcomed Israel's overnight attack against Iran and asked the public to pray for the Jewish State, which waged strikes against Tehran's expanding nuclear program and military leadership. 'Game on. Pray for Israel,' Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a defense hawk, wrote Thursday night on the social media platform X. Similar messages were posted by other GOP members of Congress since Israel unleashed an attack that, so far, has killed Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Hossein Salami, along with two other top Iranian generals. Speaker Mike Johnson echoed President Trump's consistent warning that Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon in his response, commending the administration for working 'tirelessly to ensure that outcome.' 'Unfortunately, Iran has refused to agree and even declared yesterday its intent to build a new enrichment facility,' Johnson posted to X on Friday. 'Israel decided it needed to take action to defend itself,' he added. 'They were clearly within their right to do so. Iran will face grave consequences if it responds by unjustifiably targeting U.S. interests.' Sen. Jim Risch, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also showed his support for Israel late Thursday, following the strikes. 'We stand with Israel tonight and pray for the safety of its people and the success of this unilateral, defensive action. I am also praying for the brave U.S. service members in the Middle East who keep America safe — Iran would be foolish to attack the United States,' he posted on X. Israel performed at least five rounds of strikes against Iran, hitting dozens of targets, including the Natanz, one of Iran's main enrichment facilities. Israel said the attack was unleashed to help prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video message that the operation, dubbed 'Rising Lion,' would last 'as many days as it takes.' 'We struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment program. We struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear weaponization program. We targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz,' the prime minster said in his address, shared to X. 'We targeted Iran's leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran's ballistic missile program.' Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Commitee, said that Israel's 'reckless escalation' threatens to ignite violence in the region and could jeopardize the safety of Americans stationed in the Middle East. 'While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer,' Reed said late Thursday in a statement. 'I urge both nations to show immediate restraint, and I call on President Trump and our international partners to press for diplomatic de-escalation before this crisis spirals further out of control,' the Democratic senator added. 'President Trump must be crystal clear with the American people and the international community in charting a way forward. The world cannot afford more devastating conflict born of short-sighted violence.' Iran retaliated, launching over 100 drones, some of whom are intercepted by the Israeli military, according to officials. Trump warned Iran Friday morning to accept a nuclear deal with the U.S. or it would face harsh consequences. 'I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come – And they know how to use it,' the president wrote on Truth Social. He added in a subsequent post, 'Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!' Iran, amid the tension, announced Friday that they were pulling out of the next round of nuclear talks that were expected Sunday in Oman. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: We cannot allow a U.S. senator to be handcuffed for asking questions
To the editor: When is enough enough? I am in tears as a senator from my state is manhandled to the ground for asking questions ('California Sen. Alex Padilla forcibly removed, handcuffed during Kristi Noem press conference,' June 12). How could Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's "security" assault our senator for exercising his constitutional rights? Whether Sen. Alex Padilla was a government representative or not, this is all a part of our rights as citizens, as granted by the 1st Amendment. On top of all the affronts by President Trump's disregard of our laws, this is over the edge to dictatorship. All senators and representatives must stand up to this outrageous disregard of our laws. The Posse Comitatus Act is not a suggestion, nor is the Constitution. It is well past time for Republicans to stand up for our country. Do they really care to go down in history as seditious cowards? I am a 78-year-old Los Angeles native and have never been so angry at the behavior of government officials in my life. I've seen President Nixon lie and the Iran-Contra mess under President Reagan, in addition to many other incidents where officials broke the law. This is much worse. Our rights are on the line. If my mobility were not impaired, I would be protesting with my fellow Angelenos. Stand up for us! Leslie Forester Tillmann, Palm Desert .. To the editor: Noem can shoot defenseless animals, but is unable to answer questions from a United States senator. Is she really capable of ensuring our nation's domestic security? It doesn't look like it. Mary Griswold Gordon, Rancho Palos Verdes This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump should not control US Marshals, our courts' last line of defense
During his first term in office, President Trump pulled no punches in his personal attacks on federal judges with whom he disagreed. For instance, in February 2017, Trump called U.S. District Judge James L. Robart a 'so-called judge' after he temporarily stopped Trump's travel ban. In his second term, Trump has upped the ante. In his all-caps 2025 Memorial Day message, Trump denounced what he claimed were 'USA-HATING JUDGES WHO SUFFER FROM AN IDEOLOGY THAT IS SICK, AND VERY DANGEROUS FOR OUR COUNTRY.' Presidents have long expressed their unhappiness with court decisions they disagree with, often in public. But President Trump takes a different approach from other presidents by personally attacking judges. This violates decades of norms of presidential respect for the judicial branch and has important consequences. Most notably, physical threats against federal judges reached an all-time high during Trump's first term. And things have only gotten worse. This year alone, the U.S. Marshals Service, the law enforcement agency charged with protecting federal judges, has investigated almost 400 threats to federal judges, with 162 judges facing threats between March 1 and April 14. Much of the recent intimidation comes in the form of 'pizza doxing,' in which federal judges receive unsolicited pizza deliveries to their homes. The recipient of these deliveries is listed as Daniel Anderl, the late son of U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, who was killed by a gunman who was targeting Salas. Recognizing this problem, Democratic members of Congress have introduced the Marshals Act, which would move the U.S. Marshals Service from the executive branch to the judicial branch, overseen by a board that includes the chief justice of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the United States, the policymaking body of the federal courts. Congress should pass this important legislation. By bringing the Marshals Service under the authority of the judicial branch, the nation can better protect the safety of federal judges. In addition, the act anticipates two very real possibilities, helping the nation avoid a potential constitutional crisis. First, the Trump administration has violated federal judicial orders relating to federal funding, the freedom of the press and the deportation of immigrants without due process of law. If the administration continues to ignore court decisions, the primary tool at the disposal of judges is to hold Trump administration lawyers in contempt of court. This usually begins with a fine, but can escalate to jail time if the administration continues to refuse to comply with court orders. Here's the problem: The entity charged with enforcing a criminal contempt of court order by making the arrest is the U.S. Marshals Service. Since the Marshals are under the control of the executive branch, President Trump could simply order the Marshals not to enforce the court order. This would render the judicial branch powerless over the Trump administration, setting off a constitutional crisis. By moving oversight of the Marshals from the executive branch to the judicial branch, we can avoid this crisis since federal judges would surely enforce their own orders. Second, there are concerns that Trump may order the Marshals to stop protecting federal judges. This wouldn't be the first time Trump has removed protective details for federal officials. For example, in his second term, Trump pulled security details for former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former national security advisor John Bolton and President Biden's adult children, Ashley and Hunter Biden. It is hardly a stretch to imagine Trump removing the Marshal's protection of federal judges. We can avoid this by putting the Marshals Service under the control of the judicial branch, which will no doubt ensure its judges get the protection they need. As Chief Justice Roberts stated in May, 'Judicial independence is crucial' to the American separation of powers system, which 'doesn't work if the judiciary is not independent.' In the current era, our system of checks and balances is deteriorating, and the judicial branch is arguably its weakest link. Passing the Marshals Act will strengthen judicial independence by allowing judges to render decisions free from concerns about intimidation or retribution from those who would do them harm. Paul M. Collins, Jr. is a professor of Legal Studies and Political Science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and the coauthor of 'The President and the Supreme Court: Going Public on Judicial Decisions from Washington to Trump.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
