The Trump administration is pressing forward with a controversial plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, a move it claims will improve the nation’s struggling academic performance by reducing federal oversight and granting more control to states. However, many education leaders and state officials express deep concerns that the plan will instead create more bureaucracy and confusion, ultimately offering little tangible benefit to the students who need it most.
At the heart of the administration’s proposal is a significant restructuring of how federal education programs are managed. Rather than being centralized within the Department of Education, much of its current work and funding would be transferred to four other federal departments — Labor, Health and Human Services, State, and the Interior. This reallocation is seen by President Donald Trump and his team as a step toward eventually abolishing the Education Department altogether, empowering states to take the lead in managing education policies and programs.
While the administration frames this as a way to eliminate “federal micromanagement,” state education officials largely disagree. Washington state’s education chief warned that this shift would increase bureaucracy fivefold, creating “confusion and duplicity” for educators and families alike. California’s education leader echoed these concerns, labeling the plan “clearly less efficient” and cautioning it could cause significant disruption. Maryland’s superintendent highlighted the logistical difficulties of coordinating education efforts across multiple federal agencies rather than dealing with a single department.
Jill Underly, Wisconsin’s state superintendent, criticized the administration’s process, noting that states were not meaningfully consulted and that the plan does not address the real needs of students. She called instead for greater flexibility for states and a reduction in standardized testing requirements, which many educators view as burdensome and unhelpful to student learning.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended the plan by assuring that schools will continue to receive federal funding without interruption. She argued that the restructuring would ultimately provide schools with more money and greater freedom to tailor programs to their students’ needs, even without a centralized Education Department. Yet, it is important to note that only Congress has the authority to officially abolish the department; for now, the agency will remain, albeit in a diminished and uncertain role.
Under the new arrangement, the Department of Labor will assume responsibility for most school funding and support programs, while the Education Department retains some oversight, including policy guidance and supervision of Labor’s education-related activities. Other programs will be moved to Health and Human Services, the State Department, and the Interior Department. These agreements were finalized just days before a government shutdown and publicly announced shortly thereafter.
While interagency agreements have existed before — the Education Department had dozens of such arrangements prior to the Trump administration — this plan represents a much larger decentralization. For example, the majority of the Education Department’s funding for schools will now be managed by other departments. Some education officials, like Virginia’s schools chief Emily Anne Gullickson, welcome this shift, noting that schools are accustomed to coordinating with multiple federal agencies and praising efforts to give states more control.
The reaction to the plan has largely fallen along political lines. Democrats have expressed strong opposition, warning that the shakeup will harm vulnerable students who rely on federal support. Republicans in Congress generally praised the move as a victory over bureaucratic inefficiency. However, some conservatives have also voiced reservations. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, warned that moving education programs to agencies lacking specific policy expertise could be detrimental to young people. Margaret Spellings, education secretary under former President George W. Bush, called the plan a distraction from the urgent national education crisis and argued that simply shifting programs between agencies will not reduce bureaucracy but might instead complicate the system further, making it harder for students, teachers, and families to access needed support.
The need for improving America’s education system is widely acknowledged. National math and reading scores have declined sharply following the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to that, reading scores had remained stagnant for decades, and math scores showed little improvement. Secretary McMahon cites these disappointing outcomes as evidence that the current Education Department has failed and is no longer necessary. She describes her proposal as a “hard reset” that maintains federal funding but ends what she calls “federal micromanagement.”
This rationale is strongly disputed by education advocates. Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers and a vocal critic of the administration’s plan, questioned why the administration would dismantle an existing bureaucracy with experience and create new, untested structures instead of improving the current system. She