Trump Just Declared War on Public Education—and Our Kids Will Pay the Price
Introduction
The U.S. Department of Education is the federal government’s chief guardian of equal access to quality education. From ensuring rural schools aren’t forgotten to protecting children’s civil rights in classrooms, this department plays a vital role in American life.
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the Department of Education. This unprecedented step is not just a legal maneuver—it strikes at the heart of what makes our education system a unifying force in a diverse country.
For decades, the Department of Education has helped guarantee that every child, in every state, has a shot at a quality education. Trump’s new executive order threatens to unravel those protections and could fundamentally alter the American promise of equal opportunity. In the long term, undermining our education system erodes the informed citizenry our democracy depends on.
Go deeper with AI. This special Perplexity page lets you explore any question from the article—no filters, no limits. Just clarity. Context. Answers.
The Department of Education’s Positive Functions
Before examining the administration’s justifications, it’s crucial to remember what the Department of Education does for all of us. Here’s why the department’s work is more than bureaucratic paperwork—it’s a lifeline for students and communities across the nation:
- Ensuring Equal Access to Quality Education: The department enforces civil rights laws in schools, making sure that no student is discriminated against because of race, gender, disability, or background. Without a federal watchdog, vulnerable students could be left to fend for themselves in biased or underfunded school systems. National oversight levels the playing field, meaning a child in rural Alabama and a child in suburban California both deserve good teachers, safe classrooms, and fair treatment.
- Distributing Funding Fairly & Effectively: The Department of Education manages tens of billions in federal education funding through programs like Title I for low-income schools, special education grants, and Pell Grants for college students. This funding often goes where states and local budgets fall short. Money spent on education is an investment in society’s future—federal funds have helped raise graduation rates and college attendance, especially for low-income and minority students. Studies repeatedly show that investing in schools leads to higher lifetime earnings, less crime, and fewer people needing public assistance. Every dollar we spend now on a student’s education returns many times over in the form of a more productive workforce and healthier economy.
- Protecting Civil Rights & Promoting Equity: If a school is segregating students or a district is ignoring the needs of students with disabilities, the Department of Education can step in. Federal civil rights enforcement in education has forced schools to open doors to girls in sports (Title IX), ensure students with disabilities get an appropriate education (IDEA), and address racial segregation or discrimination. The department’s Office for Civil Rights handles thousands of complaints each year and works with districts to fix problems—no state-by-state patchwork can replace that consistency and commitment to justice in education.
- Setting National Academic Standards & Supporting Improvement: While education is largely run at the state and local level, the federal government helps guide national priorities. The Department of Education works with states on standards and testing (like the NAEP, often called the Nation’s Report Card) to give the public an honest view of how students are doing across the country. It identifies schools that are falling behind and channels extra help to them, rather than leaving those students behind. It supports educational research and innovation that states can then adopt, leading to things like better reading instruction techniques and STEM programs that ensure America remains competitive globally.
- Providing Financial Aid & College Access: Millions of Americans attend college because of federal financial aid programs managed by the Department of Education. These include Pell Grants for low-income students, work-study funds, and student loans with protections like income-driven repayment. If the department is dismantled, the future of these programs is thrown into chaos—state governments can’t easily replace the $100+ billion a year that helps students go to college. Without federal aid, higher education would slip out of reach for many families, widening inequality.
- Supporting Teachers and Educational Quality: The department funds initiatives to address teacher shortages, improve teacher training, and reward effective teaching. Grants help recruit new teachers to areas like rural communities or high-need inner-city schools. Professional development funds help teachers learn the latest methods to help children learn. By investing in the people who stand at the front of our classrooms, the department helps ensure that every student has a qualified, well-supported teacher. When teachers thrive, students thrive, and that benefits all of us.
- Fostering an Informed Citizenry: Thomas Jefferson wrote that an educated populace is vital to a free society. Public schools don’t just teach math and reading—they prepare young Americans to be informed voters and participants in our democracy. The Department of Education reinforces this mission by promoting civic education and history, ensuring schools have the resources to teach about our government, our rights, and our responsibilities. Every democracy depends on educated citizens who can think critically about issues and candidates. If we neglect education, we risk raising generations of citizens who are more vulnerable to misinformation and division. In short, a strong Department of Education is an investment in the survival of our democracy.
The Trump Administration’s Case for Dismantling – and Why It Falls Short
President Trump and his administration have given a few core reasons for wanting to dismantle the Department of Education. It’s worth looking at each of these reasons in detail, and then examining why each rationale is misguided and harmful:
1. “Education Should Be Handled by States and Localities, Not Washington.”
The Argument: Trump officials argue that the federal government shouldn’t be telling states and local school boards what to do. They claim that sending “education back to the states” will promote local control, letting communities make decisions that fit their unique needs without interference.
The Reality: Yes, local control is important—but federal oversight exists because some challenges cross state lines or have historically been neglected at the local level. Without the Department of Education, who ensures that a child in Mississippi gets the same shot at a good education as a child in Massachusetts? Who steps in if a state starts diverting education funds unequally or if a local board ignores the needs of minority students? The answer is no one, if Washington bows out completely. “States’ rights” in education has often been a code for ignoring the rights of students—especially those who are poor, have disabilities, or are from marginalized groups.
The Department of Education sets a floor of expectations, a basic level of quality and fairness that every American child deserves. States and local districts are still the primary operators of schools, but the federal role ensures no state falls disastrously behind or tramples students’ rights. Removing that safety net will create 50 separate education systems with wildly uneven results, leaving millions of kids behind just because of where they live.
2. “The Department is a Waste of Money and Bureaucracy.”
The Argument: Some in the administration say eliminating the department will cut wasteful spending and save taxpayer dollars. They often point to the department’s budget and claim that money isn’t translating into better outcomes, labeling it as inefficient Washington bureaucracy.
The Reality: The Department of Education’s budget is actually an investment in local schools and students. Over 95% of its funding goes straight out to states, school districts, and students in the form of grants and aid. Only a tiny fraction is used for administrative costs. So if you abolish the department, you’re not just cutting “bureaucracy”—you’re pulling support from classrooms.
It’s students who will pay the price: larger class sizes if Title I funds disappear, outdated textbooks and technology if grants dry up, and fewer low-income students going to college if federal aid is scaled back. And consider this: the department’s administrative overhead is small compared to its impact. One might ask, “If not the federal government, who will handle the massive job of distributing student loans or enforcing education laws?” Dismantling the department doesn’t magically make those functions unnecessary; it just means there would be no coordinated way to do them.
The cost of getting rid of the department would be borne by states trying to reinvent the wheel with 50 separate bureaucracies, a far less efficient approach. It’s like scrapping the FAA and hoping each state can manage air traffic control on its own – the result would be chaos, not savings. And the return on investment in education is proven: better educated citizens earn more, innovate more, and rely less on social services. Cutting education funds to save a buck now would cost us all far more in the long run.
3. “Federal Mandates and One-Size-Fits-All Policies Hurt Schools.”
The Argument: Critics claim that Washington imposes too many rules on schools – from testing requirements to lunch menus – stifling teacher creativity and burdening districts with compliance rather than actual teaching. They argue that if the department goes away, so will the red tape.
The Reality: It’s true that federal policies like standardized testing requirements have been controversial. But most federal mandates exist for a reason: to ensure every child is learning and no school can just hide or ignore failing groups of students. The solution to over-testing isn’t to eliminate oversight; it’s to find better ways to measure success.
Killing the Department of Education because of a dislike for certain policies is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Also, many so-called “mandates” are optional or tied to federal funding – states can and do get waivers or adjust how they implement guidelines. If anything, the department under various administrations has shown flexibility when states propose alternatives that still meet high standards.
Without the department, what recourse would parents have if their state decided to slash school standards or if their local school board started teaching content that was wildly inaccurate? Federal education policies have helped, for example, improve graduation rates and ensure kids master basic skills. The answer is to keep improving those policies, not to abandon national commitment to educational progress. Removing federal standards doesn’t automatically lead to innovation; in fact, it may remove the urgency to address problems like achievement gaps or low reading skills, letting them fester out of the public eye.
4. “School Choice and Market Forces Can Replace the Federal Role.”
The Argument: A key theme for Trump and many of his allies is that empowering parents to choose schools – including private schools or homeschooling – will force schools to improve through competition. They argue that federal involvement just props up a failing public school monopoly and that money should follow the student, not the system.
The Reality: School choice is not a magic wand that fixes systemic issues, especially if it comes at the expense of public schools where the majority of American children will always attend. The Department of Education doesn’t run local schools; it supports them. Vouchers or charter schools might offer alternatives for some families, but without a strong Department of Education, who ensures that choices are quality choices?
Who makes sure a private school receiving public funds isn’t discriminating or teaching extremist ideologies? The federal government plays a key role in accountability for any school receiving tax dollars. Moreover, public schools are a public good – they must serve every child who comes to their doors. By contrast, many private and charter schools can pick and choose or may lack capacity to serve students with complex needs.
If the Department of Education is dismantled and federal funds become a free-for-all voucher system, millions of public school students left in underfunded schools will suffer, and the promised “choice” may never materialize in rural or poor areas where there aren’t multiple schools to choose from. Market forces alone don’t ensure that a child with disabilities or an English-language learner gets an appropriate education – public policy does. Dismantling the department to pursue a one-dimensional ideology of choice ignores the many roles the department plays in uplifting all schools, including traditional public schools that anchor communities.
5. “Education Quality Hasn’t Improved Much Since the Department’s Creation.”
The Argument: Some point out that the Department of Education became a Cabinet-level agency in 1980, and claim that test scores or international rankings haven’t skyrocketed since, implying the department has failed its mission.
The Reality: This argument cherry-picks data and misses the broader picture. High school graduation rates are at historic highs, including improvements among groups that previously lagged behind. More students than ever are attending college. Gaps in access have narrowed for low-income and minority students (though there is still more work to do). The Department of Education has been instrumental in these gains through funding, research, and enforcement. Could our education system be better? Absolutely. But the way to improve is by refining what works and fixing what doesn’t – not by removing the very engine that has driven many improvements.
Imagine if, out of frustration with healthcare costs, we abolished the Department of Health and Human Services – it’s easy to see that would hurt more than help. The same logic applies here. The progress that has been made could easily reverse if we lose the national framework supporting education. Also, keep in mind that education has changed dramatically since 1980 – more diverse student populations, new technologies, changing job markets – and the Department of Education has adapted by promoting things like computer science classes, vocational training grants, and advanced placement courses. Without a central body to coordinate such forward-looking changes, **our schools risk stagnating or becoming deeply unequal in innovation.
Why Dismantling Hurts Students and Democracy
Each of the administration’s reasons fails to justify the deep harm that dismantling the Department of Education would inflict. Let’s be clear about who would be directly hurt if this executive order fully comes to pass:
- Students in Low-Income Communities: They stand to lose billions in funding that currently helps them get additional teachers, reading specialists, and after-school programs. Poorer districts can’t magically raise taxes to replace lost federal aid. The achievement gap between rich and poor would likely widen as federal support evaporates.
- Students with Disabilities: The department monitors and enforces their rights to appropriate education services. Without federal oversight, a state facing budget cuts might quietly scale back expensive special education programs, leaving parents with little recourse.
- Rural Students: In many rural areas, the local tax base is thin. Federal funds keep the lights on and the buses running. Dismantling the department could hit rural America especially hard, as those communities lose their dedicated rural education funding streams and face teacher shortages without federal recruitment programs.
- College-Bound Students and Families: If you have a college-bound child or are a student yourself, federal student aid is often the deciding factor in whether higher education is affordable. The Department’s collapse would throw programs like Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study into limbo. Middle-class families counting on these programs would be stretched to the breaking point, and many students might forego college or take on more debt without the department’s oversight of fair loan terms.
- Teachers and School Staff: Federal grants fund a lot of teacher training and professional development. They also support class-size reduction and hiring in subjects like science and math. A diminished Department of Education means fewer resources to improve teaching, fewer scholarships for aspiring teachers, and possibly an uptick in teachers leaving the profession due to lack of support. All of that hurts students in the classroom daily.
- Taxpayers Who Value Accountability: The Department of Education doesn’t just hand out money and walk away – it requires results and accountability. If that goes away, how will taxpayers know that their state or local officials are using education funds properly? We could see more corruption or mismanagement at the local level with no federal audits or oversight to catch it. Every dollar lost to waste or fraud in education is a dollar stolen from our kids’ futures.
Beyond individual groups, dismantling the Department of Education erodes key democratic principles:
- Erosion of Equal Opportunity: America is built on the idea that if you work hard, you can succeed—but that starts with equal educational opportunity. If we allow the quality of education to vary drastically by state or neighborhood, we break that promise. Education would no longer be the great equalizer; instead it would entrench inequality. That fundamentally betrays the American Dream.
- Undermining National Unity: While we celebrate local culture and control, having national educational goals has always been part of what binds us together. Kids in Oregon and kids in Georgia can discuss a common book they read or a history lesson they learned, because there are national conversations about education standards. Removing a federal role could mean students in different states grow up with completely different understandings of civics, history, and science. It’s not hard to imagine how that could lead to further national division and misunderstanding, exactly when we need more unity.
- Weakening Informed Citizenship: Democracy doesn’t automatically survive—it needs to be nurtured by each generation. Public schools are where we nurture it. If parts of the country start skimping on civic education or critical thinking skills due to lack of funds or lower standards, we’ll have a generation less prepared to vote, serve on juries, discern facts from falsehoods, or run for office. Democracy wilts when citizens are not educated; the Department of Education is a bulwark against that by pushing for strong curriculum and equal resources nationwide.
- A Slippery Slope of Federal Retreat: If the federal government backs out of education, one of its most important domestic responsibilities, it raises the question: what next? Do we stop having national standards for clean water? Do we close the National Institutes of Health and let states figure out cures for diseases on their own? Dismantling the Department of Education sets a dangerous precedent of retreat on issues that need a national solution. America didn’t become a world leader by each state going it alone—we did it by working together, pooling resources for the common good, and setting common standards of excellence.
Conclusion
In a democracy, every child’s future matters to all of us. The executive order to dismantle the Department of Education is a radical step that puts politics above students. It ignores the very real good that the department does every single day—often quietly, often without headlines—as it protects a child’s right to learn in Alabama, funds a new science lab in Alaska, or helps a first-generation college student in Arizona. The dangers of this path cannot be overstated: we risk damaging our schools, deepening inequality, and undermining the educated citizenry that democracy requires. At its core, this move threatens to turn back the clock on decades of progress toward equal opportunity in education.
Dismantling the Department of Education is a leap into the unknown with our children’s future at stake. Instead, let’s choose to protect and improve this vital institution. Let’s hold our leaders accountable for strengthening schools, not abandoning them. Equal education is not just a line in a law or a department in Washington—it’s a pillar of American democracy. We should treat it as such, and fight to ensure it stands for generations to come.
Please use these approaches and resources to reach out to your elected representatives to make your voice heard.
Wrapping things up, I believe dismantling the Department of Education will harm our children and compromise our democracy. That’s my uncensored opinion and I’m sticking to it.
Mitch Jackson, Esq. | links
Are You Part of My Community?
The game’s shifting. Fast. The world and politics won’t wait—why should you?
Cut the noise. Keep the signal.
No fluff. No spin. Just what matters.
Stay sharp. Subscribe.
