Did Trump Just Abolish the Department of Education?
While he can't get rid of the department outright, a new executive order attempts the next best thing.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump signed a long-awaited executive order that attempts to begin the dismantling of the Department of Education. But since only Congress can officially abolish the department, it's unclear how much effect Trump's order will have on the status quo.
"The experiment of controlling American education through Federal programs and dollars—and the unaccountable bureaucracy those programs and dollars support—has plainly failed our children, our teachers, and our families," the executive order reads. "While the Department of Education does not educate anyone, it maintains a public relations office that includes over 80 staffers at a cost of more than $10 million per year."
The order directs Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to, with "the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education." While the directive is vague, actions McMahon has already taken—specifically, firing or buying out half the department's staff—suggest how she might attempt to grind the department's functions to a halt.
McMahon is also light on specifics. In a Thursday statement, she assured Americans that "closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them—we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs." But she also argued that "taxpayers will no longer be burdened with tens of billions of dollars of waste on progressive social experiments and obsolete programs. K-12 and college students will be relieved of the drudgery caused by administrative burdens—and positioned to achieve success in a future career they love."
While it remains to be seen whether Trump's order will actually functionally abolish the Department of Education, should Congress summon the will to legally dissolve the department, there's little reason to worry about the state of K-12 schools. The vast majority of K-12 educational funding comes from state and local sources. Instead, the Department of Education is primarily concerned with running the federal student loan program. (Trump's order frames the department's $1.6 trillion loan portfolio as making the department "roughly the size of one of the Nation's largest banks.")
"The Department of Education has entrenched the education bureaucracy and sought to convince America that Federal control over education is beneficial," the order states. "Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them."
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
Oh No Mr FAFSA whatever shall we do?
Get student loans from institutions that will evaluate students for their chances of academic success, and ability to repay the loans based on what the money is being spent to major in? I will add, Congress definitely needs to revamp bankruptcy law to make student loans eligible for discharge there. We'll want the banks to have proper incentive to evaluate applications, of course.
It seems to me most students would then qualify for bankruptcy the day they graduate and before they find a job.
It'd also effectively ruin their chances of moving away from mom and dad for, likely, a decade or more.
Bankruptcy before you really establish a credit score will ruin somebody. They will be advised of that, but college grads are fucking idiots.
Not if you plan it right.
Put the individual institutions on the hook for 50% of the student loan balance if the loan goes into default and you'll see a dramatic change in the "admit anyone with a pulse" college admissions process. This arrangement is no different than Small Business Administration loans, the government backs SBA loans at 50%, the bank issuing the loan in on the hook for the other 50%.
College/University tuition fees have risen astronomically in large part due to the simple economic principle of supply and demand. When I started college at a public university in 1977 the per credit hour tuition was $25. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $135 today. Today, the same university's in-state undergrad tuition is $434 per hour based on a full 16 credit hour per semester enrollment (it's higher per hour for less than 12 hours). That's an increase of more than three times the rate of inflation.
Current admissions policies have resulted in about 25% of incoming students being placed in non-credit earning remedial math and/or English courses based on the institutions' individual placement exams. Joey/Janey can't read at a 10th grade level or perform basic mathematics, but sure, let's admit them, point them to the financial aid office then watch them fail and walk away no smarter than the day they arrived on campus with thousands in student debt to pay off.
America's public education system is based on the old Prussian system. Hence, it's main purpose is to turn out semi literate mongrels who have just enough education to run a machine, fill out some paper work and believe everything the government says, so they will gladly become canon fodder whenever they're told.
"There's a reason for this, there's a reason why education sucks, why it will never get any better, don't look for it, be happy with what you've got because the owners, the real owners don't want that. It doesn't help them, it's not in their interests. What they want are obedient workers." George Carlin
"just enough education to run a machine, fill out some paper work and believe everything the government says"
You forgot "properly wear a bullet-stopping uniform".
People often forget that many of the initial creators of the US education system were protestants that were deeply worried so many youth were being turned out (hah!) by the catholic school system. They wanted the US to produce many more WASPy soldiers to carry the day.
I think I must be missing something. Why can't the department be abolished? It was created by executive order?
Reason doesn't understand that Trump has unlimited power and isn't answerable to Congress or the Court.
Come on man, you know the answer is the democrats did it first.
Negative in this case. Democrats would never disband or shrink a government entity.
Trump is answerable to Congress. But perhaps a majority realize this is what people voted for and don't feel like doing anything about it at this time.
If people end up really hating what Trump is doing they can express their dismay at the polls in 2026. If the dems win big, they can impeach him in 2027. In an impeachment, Congress defines the terms so the executive's opinions would be moot. It is a political process.
Trump is taking a big gamble. But even if he loses, he can say he tried to reduce government. It wasn't just lip service.
Winning an election does not give the president the authority to violate the Constitutions or federal law. The legal significance of "What people voted for" ended at noon on January 20.
But it is debatable whether he has or has not.
And Trump is not the first president to push the limits of EO's.
So you claim Biden could do / did do what you are now claiming Trump is doing / shouldn't be doing.
I think there's some confusion going on in your head.
What law did he violate?
TonyGodiva is lying so don't expect an answer.
Tony keeps repeating the same bullshit accusations. Never back them up.
Tony is just bitching because he lost.
Molly is dumber that sarc. Doesn't think any assassination attempts happened.
MollyGodiva 1 day ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Zero assassination attempts. The first one intentionally missed and the second one never even fired a shot.
Is Molly dumber than White Mike? That sea lion was the village idiot in a town of retards stupid.
The first one? Does Tony mean the guy who killed a man standing behind Trump?
If a president(Jimmy Carter) can create such a bureaucracy as the Dept. of Ed. then a president can thus, shut it down. Especially since it never accomplished anything tangible anyway.
Hey Tony, how has Trump ‘violated the constitution’? Be specific. Or is it just that you don’t like what he’s doing, but it’s totally legal?
Seethe harder.
First of all it was not created by executive order. Congress created it legislatively. And secondly (sarc) Trump DOES have unlimited power. Congress gradually gave it to him over the last several decades. Now they may be coming to realize that it might not have been such a great idea, but it's too late. So sad ...
It was created by law.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/96th-congress/senate-bill/210
However Congress can end it by law too.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/119/hr899
I don't know if you're right about the initial creation, but it's been funded and reauthorized by Congress many times since, is my guess. Congress has to unauthorize it.
The President is obligated to administer the ED in good faith as Congress laid out. If he can spend all the money allocated, properly administer all the programs Congress tasked the ED to do with fewer people, fine, but he can't sabotage the department from doing it's job.
Congress should quit handing authority to the executive. The executive may use it in ways they don't like.
Biden first said he could not cancel student debt. It would be up to Congress. The Speaker of the House concurred. SCOTUS concurred.
But Biden kept doing it anyway. I don't recall you complaining.
She cheered it on.
Oh Molly, he took an Oath to; the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Can you point to the enumerated power that grants congress the authority to create the DoE?
"he can't sabotage the department from doing it's job"
Lol, wut?
He certainly can stop the department from doing any "job". That's definitely in the Chief Executive wheelhouse.
He certainly can stop the department from doing any "job". That's definitely in the Chief Executive wheelhouse.
Sounds like you want a President that can do whatever he wants and ignore what the law tells him he is supposed to do. Is that a chief executive, or a dictator?
Dept of Education doing its job, it seems, would be to ruin children's education and turn them into idiots.
That is all the DoE has done since its inception.
Indeed. And the nation is worse off because of it.
Insanity is when an idea fails continuously and yet continues to be implemented .
So, dictator it is? As long as he does what you think he should be doing, anyway.
Getting rid of the DoE effectively reduces his power. So Trump is doing what you want already.
So quit your bitching.
"...Sounds like you want a President that can do whatever he wants and ignore what the law tells him he is supposed to do. Is that a chief executive, or a dictator?..."
Unlike lefty shits like you, we don't want him to allow murder of the unarmed.
I find it very cute that people like Molly make declarative statements like this which would have made Prosecutorial Discretion and similar lefty perversions of the executive branch impossible. I guess this time it's (D)ifferent.
How do you and sarc still nor understand what minimal compliance means? Even ENB understands it.
They have a collective IQ lower than freezing.
Uh huh.
Too bad, so sad.
Not that Trump is doing this, per se, but...
If the president believes, in good faith, that the existence of a Department of Education is unconstitutional, and as the president has sworn an oath to uphold the constitution, wouldn't that entitle him to end it, and tee up a constitutional challenge to the ED in the courts?
If the President believes "in good faith"? I don't think that's much of a restriction on the ability of a President to declare that what he wants to do is what the Constitution "really" requires, and then to ignore decades or centuries of existing law and precedent in order to do it. Sure, some people argue about constitutional matters like it is a good thing to constantly be pushing the boundaries and move things in a 'better' direction. Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scot and all that. The point of having these kinds of norms as precedent isn't that they are right, or even that they are presumed to be right until proven wrong. The point is to think about why the precedents exist before you start tossing them away.
I mean, the government has been persistently wrong about the constitution for long periods of time before. The Executive isn't bound to the interpretations of previous administrations or congress as to what is constitutional, only to the Supreme Court (and only as and where specifically bound - they don't need to go further than the Supreme Court's explicit holding). They are required, by their oath, to exercise their own judgment where SCOTUS has not spoken.
The only precedents that matter are SCOTUS's. That Congress has pretended it has the authority isn't precedent.
And your Chesterton quote misses the mark. Congress and a prior administration removed the fence that was across the road, a president who believed the ED was unconstitutional would be putting the fence back.
(And honestly, i believe the Oath of Office for the president creates an affirmative obligation to judge the constitutionality of all actions undertaken by the executive. The presidents first obligation is to the Constitution. Not Congress. Not prior presidents. Not 'tradition' broadly construed (the Constitution is the overriding tradition). And that judgment must be the president's own personal judgment. Only SCOTUS can ultimately decide if they are right or wrong).
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There is an argument that much of the growth of the federal government is unconstitutional in and of itself. People who wanted to expand the federal government for their bidding had no problem ignoring it.
Exactly.
Today's homework assignment:
1. List all the cabinet level positions.
2. Next to each position, write down a US Constitution provision that justifies it.
3. Look up the budget for each position not specifically authorized by the constitution.
“the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law”
Does Trump even know how to fascism bro?
He knows.
Years of watching democrats clearly shows how.
But they did it first, so it's OK.
Fascism = Anything or anyone who does not agree with a leftist.
The same leftists who carry Molotov cocktails.
Donald Trump's mythical comeback victory is one of the most incredible timeline-skips I've ever witnessed in my life. The trajectory is radically changed. Just imagine the things Kamala would be doing right now with that pen. But instead we get abolishing the Dept of Ed. So beautiful.
Keep going, full speed ahead sir. Don't stop.
"Libertarians" hardest hit, apparently.
Did Trump end the DOE?
Sadly, no.
That's the job of Congress, but I will applaud Trump for trying to rid the taxpayers of a needless, useless and expensive bureaucracy that has proven its ineffectiveness for decades.
I can only appreciate that when I went to public school, there was no such bureaucracy. The state and local school boards decided what was in the best interests of the students. Not some overpaid unelected bureaucrat.
The EO, and the effective neutering are thus far proving popular. Congressional republicans may feel enough pressure to grow a pair and legislate it, and possibly other federal entities, out of existence.
I sure hope so.
While the directive is vague, actions McMahon has already taken—specifically, firing or buying out half the department's staff—suggest how she might attempt to grind the department's functions to a halt.
So, how is this compatible with what McMahon is quoted as saying here?
...closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them—we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs.
Ah, more of the "Government is staffed at a PERFECT level. No excessive bureaucrats are employed" of the left.
Ah, more of the "I'm going to ignore the obvious point being made so that I can argue against a straw man instead" of damikesc.
How is it not?
I found it frustrating when we moved between states and had to concern ourselves about the quality of the education our kids would get in the next state. Even more so which town in the next state would be the best choice. Similarly I never thought it fair that my brother's kids in our home state received a much lower quality than my kids got because we left. IMO, a Federal minimum standard is an obligation we have to all US kids, and easily a worthwhile benefit to us all.
So what minimum standard is being taught today? That all white people are racist? The boys can become girls and vice versa? That math and reading skills don't matter?
Or that as of now, this nation ranks no.40 out of the 40 top nations for education. Even a college education has become meaningless.
It's unlikely that those are being taught in a significant number of districts; though certainly never say never. In a quality environment the kids would be taught how to use evidence and analysis to make a thesis surrounding what is culture or gender or whatever. That's certainly what I see in our district; and am happy to support in others. I haven't heard of a major de-emphasis of math or reading, though there are certainly societal norms weakening the latter. If that's what we can support for kids in WV or AL or MA or wherever, then a Fed DOE or some Fed agency seems to be the answer.
So then, more government is the answer to everything. That some unelected bureaucrats in D.C. know what's best for the rest of us.
We see how well that has worked out.
Show me where the federal government has the constitutional authority to do any of that.
Inter-state compacts and competition are the primary drivers of any increase in educational standards. There are no real federal standards. (Curricular decisions are still made by states and local school boards).
(No seriously, there aren't any federal standards. The ESEA "supports State efforts to establish challenging standards, develop aligned assessments, and build accountability systems..." (https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/laws-preschool-grade-12-education/esea/standards-and-assessments). It's still state standards all the way down.
Not a single student can read in 30 Illinois schools:
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/news-selections/national-news/not-a-single-student-can-read-at-grade-level-in-30-illinois-schools
Sounds to me like the problem isn’t ’federal standards’. With the real problem being democrat standards’.
Did you check out how much money was being spent per student at some of those schools? Unbelievable.
Only a [Na]tional So[zi]alist Congress is above the US Constitution or what?
There is NO constitutional authority for a 'Federal' Department of Education. It doesn't even exist legally in this nation.
And in other news Elon Musk just eliminated another grift. This time $52 million to that globalist WEF. Looks like Klaus is gonna have to dine of liverwurst instead of steak and lobster.
Good work Elon! And give Jamal Bowman a good arse kicking.
The amount of money being thrown around is beyond belief but Musk and his DOGE team are crashing the party.
This is what winning looks like.