Will Trump Try To Shut Down the Department of Education?
While Trump can't dissolve the department by executive action, getting rid of it through legislation is still a good idea.

The Trump administration has begun drawing up an executive order that would aim to radically diminish the Education Department, with the goal of eventually scrapping it entirely, CNN reported last week. According to CNN, the anticipated plan would include an order directing the secretary of education to develop a plan to shrink the department through future executive orders, as well as a drive from Trump for Congress to formally nix the department.
While it does not look like Trump will attempt to dissolve the Education Department through executive action, he clearly intends to do the next best thing. "I told Linda, 'Linda, I hope you do a great job in putting yourself out of a job,'" Trump said of education secretary nominee Linda McMahon last week. "I want her to put herself out of a job."
The move comes as part of a broader project to shrink the federal government through executive orders—a plan that's been having mixed results, especially considering that many government functions and departments can only be abolished by Congress. So far, Trump is facing dozens of lawsuits attempting to halt his multitude of recent executive orders.
While it seems unlikely that Congress will move to dissolve the Department of Education altogether, should the improbable happen, the result would be far from the armageddon for American education that many of Trump's detractors claim it would be.
Currently, over 90 percent of education funding comes from nonfederal sources, mostly state and local governments. Rather than funding or running American schools, the Education Department is mostly concerned with running the massive federal student loan program—a funding apparatus that has hardly made obtaining a college education cheaper or easier. Few realize that the Education Department wasn't even established until 1979. American children were educated in public schools before the Department of Education, and in a world without a formalized cabinet position devoted to education, there's little reason to think much will change for K-12 schools.
"Maybe some of the federal policies are good ideas, and often they're bad. But they've reduced the variety of approaches among public schools which are nudged to comply with federal preferences. And, importantly, they've done nothing to improve the results of government-run schools that consistently fail to properly educate large numbers of American children," Reason's J.D. Tuccille wrote on Monday. "So, getting rid of the federal Department of Education could decentralize education, improve outcomes, and increase parents' satisfaction with how their kids are taught."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Only leftist Marxists think Trump needs Congress to eliminate departments.
True.
Lol that was an epic self own. He's getting dumber by the day.
Brain cells don’t regenerate. Especially if you’re a wino.
That was truly hilarious.
100% True.
It's UN-Constitutional.
What would we do without Jimmy carter payoff to the NEA?!?
Where in the Constitution is any mention of the Dept of Ed? There is none. Therefore the President can dissolve it.
That is not how it works. The president still must comply with federal law.
Name the law.
This?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/senate-bill/210
Don't get me wrong. I would love to see the dept of ed go away.
93 Stat. 668
Which section?
All he really has to do is form the half dozen positions and collect data to be compliant. Nowhere in there does ot say to distribute all funds.
In fact most of the duties just outline a unified approach. Ironically leaving it up to the states is a unified approach.
So be specific.
Tony doesn’t know.
Is there a single issue where you don't take the Democrat/Leftist position?
"The President must comply with federal law" is now a Democrat/Leftist position?
Name the law.
Can you be specific. Or are you too uneducated to do anything but blindly repeat narratives. Cite the section, law or words.
Pretty funny, you wanting someone else to be specific, when you pretend to not understand basic Econ 101 definitions.
Not until Trump took office last month.
The president has a constitutional duty to uphold the constitution before the unconstitutional law. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and was specifically ruled out during the constitutional convention. I applaud Trump for upholding the constitution.
^THIS +10000000000000000.
That is not how it works?
Funny; I thought the US Constitution was exactly how it works.
Your kind is the problem.
What constitution?
There is no constitution. So Trump is just a squatter in a nice old house, not a president.
^The real mentality of every treasonous leftard [Na]tional So[zi]alist.
So go over to the White House and kick him out yourself. Don’t let anyone stop you.
Fire everyone. Spend 100% of the budget on phonics.
Then people will get Hooked on Phonics.
Which would then breed an underclass who can't handle it, always looking to get their phonics fix. Then comes phonics rehab and a burgeoning industry of phonics recovery centers. They'd all need funding, which people would want the government to pay for, and that's a libertarian nightmare.
Seems like a good way to spend the USAID funding. 100% towards phonics recovery.
Don’t forget, the market would be flooded with cheap imported phonics, and trump will apply phonics tarrifs.
Hukd on fonix wrkd fir me!
Jokes on you, Monkey Phonics will win the phonics wars, what with the poop flinging and biting and scratching.
Monkey Phonics was the first thing I though of too.
Literacy is white supremacy.
We were warned the other day that the new uniparty/swamp narrative would be "Yes, it's okay to cut unnecessary expense, but we have to be prudent and slow down. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater."
My bathwater my choice.
There is no baby in the bathwater. The baby is a lie. It is a smokescreen for the graft.
OK. the fetus that was drowned in the bath.
Yes. Call it a fetus and the democrats will fall all over themselves for a chance to throw it out.
Try, yes. Succeeded, yes. Be legal, no. And Rs don't have the votes to eliminate the DoE. A 10% cut to public school funding won't be popular. Killing student loans won't be popular either.
You wouldn't look so retarded if you actually looked at how he is doing this.
He is pushing to be minimally compliant with current statute while proposing Congress ends it.
‘Molly’ gets all his news from, MSNBC.
""Killing student loans won't be popular either.""
Before or after you get it?
Obfuscate, prevaricate, delay, obstruct. That is all that will ever come out of congress on eliminating any sort of agency, bureau, or entitlement no matter what DOGE reveals. It will get lost in the miasma of the "swamp."
The only way to make any meaningful change, when we are dealing with a outsized and bloated a creature as our government, is a wrecking ball.
While Trump can't dissolve the department by executive action
Really? I get the impression that these Trump folks don't really care so much for the law.
You mean like you and your buddy regarding immigration law? You guys have no problem with illegal immigrants coming here by the millions and all of the costs associated with it.
But when it comes to cutting Govt spending, you guys are all about process and norms.
So is your argument then that the law establishing the Department of Education is an immoral and unjust law? If so, why?
If so, why?
Neither education, nor it’s funding, is found anywhere in the list of powers enumerated to the government of the United States by Article I Section 8 of The Constitution of The United States of America.
But... but... the General Welfare Clause!!!1!
Never-mind it's the Taxing Clause for the general welfare of the US government.
It’s a waste of money.
What are we getting for our money?
Even if true that the Dept of Education is a waste of money, it is Congress that created the department and funded it. While Trump certainly does have an obligation to root out waste, he also has an obligation to execute the laws that Congress passed. So the real argument seems to be, does Trump's moral obligation to eliminate waste rise above Trump's other moral obligation to be a good steward of the office that he resides in executing the laws? If so, why?
Only insofar as those laws are constitutional. The President is under no obligation to presume that, just because a law was passed that it means it was passed pursuant to the Constitution.
Marbury v. Madison: "... a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument..."
That’s not the real argument Fatfuck. Nice try though. We all know what you’re doing.
So you’re ok with ignoring any law you do t like? Ok, got it.
I’m saying it was 100% unconstitutional. Case closed.
It doesn't matter what Trump can or can't do. Musk will defund it directly.
To piggyback on what Bananas wrote, you told me in other comments that it doesn't matter what the law says with regard to (illegal) immigration. That if the law is unjust, and stopping peaceful people from being able to enter the country is unjust, that you're fine with the law being broken.
So stop your pretense that you care about following the law. You care about your ends being accomplished, regardless of the law. If your position can be effected within the law, great. If the law needs to be broken to achieve your goal, you're fine with that too.
I do agree with following the law, as long as the law is a just law. Unjust laws, immoral laws, do not deserve to be followed. That I object to some laws does not mean that I object to every law. That is silly.
For example it is no secret that I despise Trump. Have you ever seen me advocate for anyone to initiate violence against him? No, because that would not only be illegal, it would be a violation of the NAP. No matter how much I despise him.
I have never adopted the position that the ends justify the means *even for breaking just laws*. Are you? Are you taking the position that the ends justify the means, and Trump should ignore Congress, ignore the courts, and shut down agencies left and right on his will alone?
"" as long as the law is a just law. "'
Who defines what a just law is?
I know a few people who think the law against weed is unjust who ignored it. They were also arrested for it.
What if a sitting president thinks a law is unjust?
Sure, disobeying an unjust law does not mean being immune from the legal consequences thereof. Look at Gandhi or Nelson Mandela.
What if a sitting president thinks a law is unjust?
That's fine, presidents have moral agency too. But if he expects us all to take him seriously that this is a serious moral argument, as opposed to an argument of expedience, then he needs to make the serious moral argument on his own behalf. What is Trump's moral reasoning for why he thinks the Dept of Education is immoral and unjust?
It exists SOLELY to funnel money to Democrats and to benefit them politically.
There is, literally, no other reason for its existence.
To Pedo Jeffy, nothing is more moral than that.
I'm sure a lot of conservative students also received student loans administered by the Dept of Education. That isn't a defense of the loans, that is simply stating a fact.
It’s a constitutional argument. Something you can’t possibly understand.
So if Trump believes the creation of the DoEd was unconstitutional he should take steps to rectify the situation, right? Because your standard is to disregard laws you disagree with.
to disregard laws you disagree with
To repeat, that is not my standard. I believe we all have a moral obligation to disobey laws that are immoral or unjust, not merely laws that we might disagree with. I might want to disregard laws that require me to pay my debts, especially if I were experiencing financial hard times, but that would not be a moral argument, that would be an argument of expedience.
If Trump's sincere position is that he believes the Dept of Education is unconstitutional, then fine - but he needs to show his work, otherwise he too is just making an argument of expedience. By what standard does he think it is unconstitutional?
He doesn’t ‘believe’ it’s unconstitutional, it IS unconstitutional, and obviously so. Stop using weasel language.
Also, you didn't answer my question. Are you taking the ends-justify-the-means position here? Trump should unilaterally shutter the Dept of Education because it would be a net positive in the end?
He should whiter it because its existence is UNCONDITIONAL.
That clear enough for you?
You just agreed with JP. You just restated what he said with weasel words Since you do t believe in the rule of law, you have no business arguing it.
Buh bye.
Yeah, as if Biden cared about the SCOTUS decision regarding student loans.
Or the rule of law in general.
How is it even constitutional to exist (the Department)?
Bear in mind that Congress passes unconstitutional laws from time to time.
Just because there is a Dept of Education created by law does not mean the President actually has to hire anyone to work there.
If only there was a republican controlled congress that could allocate them a budget of $1,000.00
If only.
Just imagine the democrats screaming in agony over that one.
close the conformity factory!
There always be be some form of conformity. If local control means more religious education and banned book lists, that is just a different form of conformity. Even if it all is determined through local control, some will likely have no choice but to conform.
okay sure ... educate your child in your home!
That would work. May not be the best option for the child. Guess it would depend on the parents, or on what home schooling materials that they purchased. But sure, lots of freedom and non-conformity with that option.
A total lack of conformity will not serve you well in the real world.
no but your child will be better served not having been turned over for 12 years
The demise of the Department of Education is long overdue.
The US has spent billions only to end up with near illiterates coming from the public school system.
I cannot see why we should spend ever more billions to produce even more illiterates or near illiterates.
Plus, keep in mind there is no correlation between money spent and education received as the past half century clearly demonstrates.
Reason and jeffsarc in 1864: You have to go through the proper channels if you want to end slavery!!! Procedures must be followed!"
You'd all make wonderful nazis.
What a ridiculous argument. Slavery is a moral abomination, and disobeying laws that enforce legal slavery can very well be moral and just.
By contrast, I don't see a lot of consistent, serious moral arguments in favor of Trump willy-nilly doing as he pleases. I see lots of arguments of expedience, however.
The kiddy diddler wants to talk about morals…….
You'd prefer all the things you've ever wanted slow-walked through endless bureaucracy?
No, that's not what I would prefer. I would prefer that I could have whatever I wanted at the snap of my fingers. But that is not how the world works. Again this is an argument of expedience, not a moral argument. If you want to argue that Trump has "no choice" but to break the rules in order to cut spending, then you are basically arguing from an ends-justify-the-means perspective. That is different from a moral argument.
then you are basically arguing from an ends-justify-the-means perspective. That is different from a moral argument.
...how? That's literally as moral an argument as it gets. It's dead wrong, mind you - but there's an entire school of philosophy around this idea. It's Utilitarianism. Democrats have relied on it for decades - from their slavery-loving days to their border jumper-loving days - and I've personally witnessed you support it countless times.
It seems like the only reason you're against it now is because you don't like your own rules being played against you. Hey, I don't like it either - "live by the EO, die by the EO," I've always said. And I'm a fierce proponent of the moral high ground (which Trump (and frankly, MAGA) doesn't, nor Democrats, give two farts about).
But if this was the standard that was set - and you didn't object to it before Trump - then how do you have any right to complain about it now? There's no basis for it but mindless partisanship. Because suddenly it's being used against you.
I'm not saying I support doing so. I'm just saying YOU don't have any right to complain about it whatsoever.
Or, to put it all more simply, save your crocodile tears about politicians "breaking the rules." You - like so many of these ChatGPT personas pretending to be journalists here at Reason - NEVER gave a damn about that when it was working in your favor. Rules only matter to you when you can enforce them against your enemies, am I right, "libertarian?"
It’s only ok so long as you democrats approve of it. Got it.
Slavery is a moral abomination
As Banana implied, that wasn't always the view of the day.
Using the standards of today to judge the past is a colossal mistake.
Everything Fatfuck says or does is a mistake.
Slavery was allowed by the constitution (much as I wish it hadn’t been). The Department of Education (and a host of other federal agencies/regulations/etc), not so much.
Bitching about Trump even talking about getting rid of it, or the way he might eliminate an unconstitutional agency (one could argue he has a moral obligation to do so per his oath of office) seems a tad out of place for anyone purporting to be libertarian.
https://www.cato.org/blog/yes-department-education-unconstitutional
Lincoln ignored interagency protocol. He should have been impeached.
Define government programs you don’t like as slavery and you can justify tyranny to yourself.
I bet if President Kamala so much as wiped her nose the wrong way you’d have a fucking stroke oh wait that actually happened.
Yes, that’s how you democrats justify Marxist hegemony.
Democrats. Still the party of slavery.
As-if their Gov - 'Gun' THEFT excuses their slavery mentality.
Cannot get rid of it. Neuter it.
Get rid of onerous regulations (promulgated by Executive Branch, revoked by the Executive Branch),
Cut nearly all positions,
Fund states as is without strings, let States and communities figure it out.
Put Student Loans back into the private sector and get out of the loan guarantee business. If colleges want to give loans for gender studies, let them take the risk.
BILLIONS saved annually.
Move the dept offices to Deadhorse, Alaska.
Yep. Offer buyouts to anyone they can’t just fire. Put the res in rubber rooms that are very unpleasant until they quit.
Being opposed to the department of education is on the nose even for these ridiculous morons.
Man I’ve missed your unearned sense of superiority. Nobody holds a candle to your smug condescension.
His underlying stupidity really enhances the whole experience. Which is a hallmark of democrat arrogance.
10 years teaching at the college level and every year they get worse. less prepared, more lacking in basics, little or no study skills
Can't write, terrible at math, and thought they can read, they often can't read intelligently.
And that is why Trump is a US Patriot....
Instead of a treasonous leftard [Na]tional So[zi]alist.
Excellent!
"... profound constitutional questions about separation of powers that have kept each branch of the government in check for centuries."
Of course Constitutional "separation of powers" has NOT kept the Executive or Judicial branches "in check" at any time in the last century, so CNN is, yet again, engaging in aspirational fantasizing about not only what will happen if only the good guys are in charge; but also what happened in the past to justify their hopes and dreams. As Congress has gradually ceded its legislative responsibilities to the Executive, the Supreme Court has engaged in unrestrained social engineering experiments by legislating from the Bench. Only now, when the opposition is finally starting to undo some of the unconstitutional socialist agenda, are the socialists screaming about "separation of powers." Gotta luvvit!
https://www.aol.com/federal-judges-could-ignored-trump-120047082.html
To end the corrupt, useless Department Of Education Trump's Secretary Of Education simply needs to fire every single employee. Done and done.