What Happens if the Department of Education Goes Away?
Most of what the department does would likely stick around, for better or for worse.
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."
