Trump Begins to Redefine Public Education

On March 20, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and transfer its responsibilities to states and local communities. The administration highlights national assessments indicating that 70 percent of students perform below grade level as evidence that federal involvement has failed to improve K-12 outcomes. The order instructs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to facilitate the department’s closure, attempting to return authority over education to the states.

Congress created ED through statute in 1979, and only an act of Congress can formally eliminate it. As Peter Strauss of Columbia Law School has noted, outside the limited purview of foreign relations, “in the ordinary world of domestic administration responsibilities that Congress has delegated to a particular governmental actor it has created, that delegation is a part of the law whose faithful execution the president is to assure. Oversight, and not decision.” That interpretation comports with Supreme Court cases such as Clinton v. City of New York, which prohibited the president from canceling specific provisions of federal laws.

Historically, presidents have reorganized or consolidated agencies only with authority granted by Congress (e.g., President Franklin  Roosevelt’s Reorganization Acts) or by proposing legislation to Congress (e.g, President George W. Bush’s Homeland Security Act of 2002, which consolidated parts of 22 federal agencies). President Reagan attempted to eliminate ED in 1981, but even with a Republican Senate, Congress refused to act. Trump’s latest order may reorganize ED within the bounds of law and reduce its footprint, but despite its sweeping language, it is unlikely to fully remove ED’s legal authority.

However, Trump possesses considerable power to weaken agencies through attrition, budgetary reductions, and administrative restructuring. The administration appears to be pursuing this route by initiating a process of downsizing ED’s operations—such as reducing staff or shifting discretionary grant programs to other agencies, though doing so may skirt constitutional boundaries. The American Federation of Teachers and other groups are already suing to stop Trump’s actions, claiming they “will interfere with the department’s ability to carry out its statutorily required functions.” Attorneys general from 21 states and Washington D.C. filed a similar suit to block earlier orders. 

As Dan Lips writes, core ED functions such as distributing formula grants (like Title I funds) or enforcing civil rights in education are rooted in federal statute. Returning full authority to the states would require Congress to fundamentally rewrite education law. Until that happens, ED remains a statutory requirement, not a matter of executive discretion.

Returning control to states and families

Trump’s order aligns with longstanding efforts by conservatives and education reformers to expand school choice. Closing ED would send power back to states and ideally give families more say in how schools are managed. Secretary McMahon has endorsed this vision, advocating for the return of “educational oversight to the states” and an elimination of federal “red tape and bureaucratic barriers.”

ED was established in 1979, critics note, as a “payoff” by Jimmy Carter to the National Education Association teachers union. After more than 45 years, the Trump administration is endeavoring to return that power to parents and students.

Decentralization opens the door for states to accelerate reforms like charter schools, voucher programs, and education savings accounts (ESAs). Many states were already moving in this direction. School choice, once considered radical, has become mainstream; currently, 46 states offer charter schools, 34 states and D.C. provide publicly funded private schools, and 12 states have enacted choice programs open to all students.

This order invites states to reimagine K-12 education with maximum flexibility. Governors and legislatures could repurpose federal funds into portable student scholarships, encourage new charter schools, or expand homeschooling freedoms without federal permission.

Prior executive actions

The recent mandate builds on a series of previous K-12 orders that reduced federal oversight. Trump’s first K-12 directive struck down a host of standing executive orders from the Biden administration. With a single signature, Trump reversed 77 prior orders. (Some outlets reported 78, but one related to leasing oil and gas was a duplicate.)

The latest order also expands a previous mandate which directed federal funds to support non-traditional K-12 options. It instructed ED to help states utilize federal funds for educational choice initiatives. Additionally, it charged the Department of Health and Human Services to issue guidance for using Child Care and Development Block Grants to support families seeking alternatives to district schools. The order also encouraged connecting military families and students in Bureau of Indian Education schools to private and faith-based institutions.

---

Dismantle the Department of Education

Directs the Secretary of Education to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities, while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely. Mandates that any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology.

Expand school choice options for families

Directs the Department of Education to guide states on utilizing federal funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives. Instructs federal agencies to prioritize education freedom in discretionary grant programs. Encourages the use of block grants to expand educational alternatives, including private and faith-based options.

---

Combined with the recent order dismantling ED, these actions are the most significant federal school choice policy in U.S. history. If implemented, we should expect to see an explosion of school models, curricular offerings, and instructional independence over the next four years, notwithstanding certain sensitive cultural issues.

Redefining ‘public education’

Taken together, these orders begin to redefine “public education” from the conventionally understood “schools governed by the public” to the more innovative “learning funded by the public.” Since the advent of charter schools in the 1990s, the difference has become increasingly blurred. That’s partly because school choice critics do not include charter schools in their idea of “public schools,” which had been the term for  traditional school districts with elected school boards. In this framework, “public” does not mean “open to the public,” “paid for by the public,” or “free to the public,” so much as it means “delivered by elected representatives.”

Of course, that understanding is not universal among other sectors. Many public goods are managed by private providers. The conceptual distinction in education is further confused by America’s state-by-state hodgepodge of publicly funded K-12 vehicles. Some state voucher programs require private schools to accept all applicants or take state tests; others do not. What education savings accounts can pay for depends on where a family lives, as does whether the family has access to charter schools, microschools, or homeschools. Even some district schools violate norms of pluralistic public education, such as those that teach religious curriculum.

The Trump administration seems to be unifying these disparate understandings into a single definition: public education is a funding mechanism, not a type of school. Under this schema, money follows the child. Public dollars belong to families, and families can spend them within a market of approved suppliers. Those suppliers might be school districts with elected boards, non-profit or for-profit charter schools, non-profit or for-profit private schools, parochial schools, one-room microschools, homeschools run by parents, online schools with remote curriculum, third-party extracurricular vendors, or any combination thereof.

Questions and workarounds

Questions remain for this school choice vision: Will the government enforce minimum educational standards? Will assessments of those standards determine which programs qualify for funds? Will the state safeguard against misappropriation of funds? Existing school choice programs have different answers to these questions, but consensus on best practices has yet to emerge.

The order could face challenges for redirecting funds without congressional approval. In response, the Trump administration may use discretionary competitive grants as incentive for states to enact their own school choice laws. Competitive grants comprise roughly 10 percent of federal K-12 funding, or one percent of school budgets, and are awarded based on subjective ED criteria and policy priorities. President Obama utilized competitive grants to launch Race to the Top, a federal program that rewarded states for adopting certain educational reforms. These Race to the Top reforms included implementing the Common Core State Standards, evaluating educators based on student achievement, expanding charter school availability by lifting state caps, and developing data systems to track educational outcomes.

Paradoxically, the Trump administration might use the same federal power to subvert state educational authority in pursuit of local parental control: “big government” overreach for the sake of individual freedom.

Emotional resistance to school choice

Traditional school districts and their teachers’ unions often protest that alternate learning options “steal money” from public education. This argument relies on the unspoken assumption that funding children’s education belongs to traditional schools in the first place. If those resources rightfully belong to parents, as Trump’s orders suggest, then parents should be able to decide where they go. If policymakers change the framing, there will be less cause for moral outrage.

That said, there is understandable apprehension of the unknown. Most parents grew up with only traditional district schools. The creative destruction of a free market in education can be uncomfortable. Everyone agrees that failing schools are unacceptable, but failing schools also have sympathetic teachers and deserving kids. Closing those schools, or letting them “go out of business” due to competition from better schools, means sympathetic teachers lose their jobs and kids lose their first social community. That’s an emotional toll for families, even if it leads to students learning more at another school or teachers finding better positions elsewhere. It is natural to shy away from that pain and turn to wishful thinking instead. The failing school could be saved if only it had more resources.

Unfortunately, study after study shows that money is not a magic wand. In one $3.5 billion federal grant program, additional investment had “no impact on math or reading test scores, high school graduation, or college enrollment.” Furthermore, evidence does not support the trope that there is “not enough money in public education.” The United States spends more on education than almost any other country: $15,500 per child, 38 percent  above the OECD average. Only four other OECD countries spend more.

The problem with public schools is not insufficient funding, and more funding will not fix them. That does not mean the frustrated teacher who pays for supplies out-of-pocket is wrong. Often, taxpayer dollars do not reach the classroom. Administrative bloat, gratuitous pension requirements, union-mandated spending, and other waste swallow funds before teachers ever see them. Bad policies, which result in bad incentives, produce bad leaders and, sometimes, bad actors. All the more reason for a free market system that clears the path for better leaders with better budgets to make better schools with better outcomes.

Despite enormous expenditures, the United States continues to fail children. Districts deploy their considerable capital inefficiently. In the recently released NAEP assessment, only one in three students could read or do math at grade level. Many scores are the lowest they have been in 30 years. Low-income students perform much worse in all categories than their high-income peers, sometimes by almost forty percentage points. Those students deserve better options. These executive orders may offer some.

Benefits for underserved children

Parental choice empowers all families, but in particular, it benefits low-income children stuck in underperforming schools. Affluent families already exercise choice by relocating to better school districts or paying for private tuition—options usually unavailable to families with fewer resources.

With less centralized regulation, that calculus could change to allow funding to follow students. For example, states might convert federal K-12 aid into vouchers or education savings accounts that low-income parents could use at a school of their choice.

Currently, Title I and special education programs fund a cumulative $27 billion annually to help vulnerable students. School choice proposals could let those dollars be used flexibly—whether at a public, charter, or private school—rather than strictly at zoned district schools.

Early evidence suggests such programs can be transformative. In Washington, D.C., a federally funded scholarship program for low-income students achieved a 91 percent high school graduation rate, far above the 70 percent rate for non-participants. Similarly, research on charter schools finds that urban charters often outperform traditional schools. A Stanford University study showed urban charter students gained the equivalent of 40 extra days of learning in math and 28 days in reading per year compared to district school peers. Black, Hispanic, low-income, and special-needs students benefited the most from charter schools.

School choice also pressures neighborhood district schools to improve or risk losing students. Decentralizing control unleashes creativity, giving parents in low-income communities real choices between competing options: not just district schools, but charter schools, private scholarships, microschools, and homeschool alternatives. Devolving power to parents spurs innovation and, in turn, improves outcomes for children historically underserved by the status quo.

Promoting pedagogical diversity

Decentralization will not only expand options but also fuel innovation in education. Sprawling federal departments tend to promote compliance rather than encourage experimentation. Shifting authority allows all 50 states and D.C. to tinker in their “laboratories” of public education.

Technology  can spur change, including AI-powered tutoring, personalized learning software, and online course platforms. Traditional systems can be slow to adopt, but decentralization gives reform-minded states the freedom to pilot these tools.

Microschools and hybrid homeschooling networks have also gained traction post-pandemic and could expand more readily without federal rules. States like Arizona have pioneered education savings accounts allowing families to customize education with state funds. More states might adopt ESAs or novel programs when fully controlling K-12 policy.

While federal law does not directly mandate curriculum, federal programs have historically influenced curricula indirectly. Without ED, classrooms will likely stray further from Common Core State Standards that the Obama administration foisted upon states. 

Protecting vulnerable populations

Removing federal mandates from the No Child Left Behind and Every Student Succeeds Act eras raises critical questions about accountability. Choice advocates argue that competition can fill the void; empowered families can leave failing schools, incentivizing improvement or closure. Charter school authorizers already close underperforming institutions more readily than traditional districts, suggesting market-like accountability is feasible.

However, decentralization brings significant equity concerns. Historically, federal oversight guaranteed protections and resources for disadvantaged and special-needs students, ensuring vulnerable groups weren’t overlooked. Without explicit federal frameworks, states must adopt robust safeguards. State-designed transparency measures—like A–F grading systems and public data access—could play essential roles in maintaining accountability in this new landscape.

Funding presents another challenge. Though federal contributions constitute only about 14 percent of total K–12 budgets, they still represent billions annually, crucial for supporting poor districts, teacher training, and after-school programs. Formula grants support students who are low-income (Title I), disabled (IDEA), non-native speakers (Title III), homeless (EHCY), and or face other disadvantages that require additional funding or support. One proposal is to tie those dollars directly to the students—dubbed “backpack funding”— as a way to prevent states from diverting money from the kids it was meant to support. Future congressional debates will likely center on converting federal aid into portable grants or vouchers.

Reducing ED headcount

Even before this order, the Trump administration has been aggressively reshaping the federal workforce by reducing staff, restricting telework, and exerting tighter control over career employees. Agencies are identifying employees hired in the past year who can be dismissed without triggering civil service appeals. The White House offered buyouts to 2.3 million federal employees and rolled back remote work policies, demanding employees either quit or return to office. The administration placed thousands of staff on paid leave, including everyone who worked on DEI, and temporarily froze all non-military hiring. Finally, the administration abruptly shuttered ED’s Institute of Education Sciences, canceling $900 million in contracts and severing its data collection and analysis operations. Although many of these moves have already been challenged in court, it’s evident that Trump intends to diminish and repurpose the government workforce.

---

Freeze federal hiring

Imposes a temporary freeze on the hiring of federal civilian employees across executive branch agencies. Exempts positions related to national security, public safety, and other critical functions. Mandates a plan to reduce the federal workforce through efficiency improvements and attrition.

Mandate return to in-person work

Demands federal employees resume full-time, in-person work at their designated duty stations, ending remote work arrangements barring limited exceptions.

Offer voluntary buyout for federal employees

Directs federal agencies to extend eight months of severance for employees to resign. Instructs agencies to use these incentives as a tool to reduce workforce size and cut costs.

NB: Not technically an executive order, but a multi-departmental, presidential action.

---

Notwithstanding their legality, these new policies sow uncertainty among ED’s roughly 4,400 career employees. During the campaign, Trump repeatedly pledged to abolish ED. In anticipation of the recent order, ED cut half of its workforce (after offering a secondary $25,000 buyout), leaving about 2,200 employees at the department.

To fully dismantle the department, however, will require immense political capital. Only Congress can disband departments, which means Trump would need support from at least seven Democratic senators to break the filibuster. That is currently a nonstarter.

An alternate way to weaken ED, however, is to reduce its workforce systematically. During Trump’s first term, the department lost about 14 percent of its staff. The administration appears to be pursuing a similar strategy and even more significant reduction this time. As Trump’s directives lead to further attrition, they will undermine the agency’s ability to function, even if formal dissolution remains out of reach.

ED workforce implications

Republicans contend that the federal government’s role in education is largely redundant. Historically, education has been viewed as a state and local responsibility rather than a federal one. The Tenth Amendment reserves to the states powers, such as education, not expressly delegated to the federal government. States and local districts are better positioned to understand and address the needs of their communities. Multiple state-led initiatives demonstrate how tailored approaches, free from federal mandates, can drive academic achievement and innovation. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics and Stanford School of Education illustrate that states exercising greater local control often demonstrate more adaptive and accountable education systems.

Cutting ED staff, and thus federal oversight in education, would likely not harm K-12 student learning because local stakeholders—parents, educators, and state officials—already manage most education policy and funding. Trimming a centralized ED should have little effect on educational opportunity. If properly designed, decentralized systems can yield even higher accountability and more targeted solutions for local challenges. Returning full authority to the states could encourage more efficient resource allocation and allow policies to be more directly aligned with community needs, fostering an environment where student outcomes continue to improve.

By scaling back the federal footprint in education, ED’s approximately $80 billion budget could instead be redirected to public schools. ED spends about $2.7 billion on overhead, $42 billion on formula grants, $4 billion on discretionary K-12 grants, $1.2 billion on college access, and $70 million on teacher training. The balance goes to post-secondary institutions.

Distributed to schools directly, federal funds would amount to roughly $1,000 per student—approximately 6.4 percent of current student funding—for schools or parents to use as they see fit. 

Biggest opportunity in half a century

President Trump’s order to dismantle the 45-year-old ED signals a generational transformation in American education policy, transferring power from federal oversight back to states, local communities, and ultimately parents. This radical decentralization seeks to redefine “public education” from government-run schools to publicly funded, family-directed educational choices.

A school choice initiative of this magnitude should lead to increased innovation, greater flexibility, and expanded opportunities, especially for disadvantaged students historically underserved by traditional district schools. Families could experience unprecedented control over educational resources, enabling them to choose between district, charter, private, microschool, or homeschool options tailored to their children’s specific needs.

However, important questions linger. States must ensure accountability and equity without federal mandates, safeguarding against mismanagement or inequitable resource distribution. Emotional resistance will persist, as changes to school systems involve difficult choices affecting real communities, teachers, and children.

Yet the current federal education model clearly isn’t working. Despite substantial investment, student achievement remains alarmingly low. The order proposes a bold corrective: freeing schools from bureaucratic constraints to drive improvement through competition and innovation.

In short, Trump’s vision of education reform argues for putting families—not federal bureaucrats—in the driver’s seat. Whether this leads to widespread educational transformation or fragmented confusion depends on state-level execution. Regardless, American education stands at a crossroads, facing perhaps its most profound experiment in decades.