Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

‘Selling off the Department of Education for parts’

News

‘Selling off the Department of Education for parts’

The Trump administration's shift of K-12 programs to the Department of Labor raises major concerns about the wellbeing of economically disadvantaged students.

(Jessica Christian/The San Francisco Chronicle/Getty Images)

As The 19th makes plans for 2026, we want to hear from you! Complete our annual survey to let us know your thoughts.
President Donald Trump has taken his most decisive step yet toward dismantling the Department of Education, a move that will have widespread ramifications for vulnerable students and has raised concerns among education leaders and lawmakers who contend that it will create chaos and confusion for families instead of giving them the help they actually need.

His administration announced on Tuesday that it will transfer core agency functions to four other federal offices — news met with fierce criticism by education advocates who questioned its legality and said it is an abandonment of the nation’s students.“


Donald Trump and his administration chose American Education Week, a time when our nation is celebrating students, public schools, and educators, to announce their illegal plan to further abandon students by dismantling the Department of Education,” said National Education Association (NEA) President Becky Pringle in a statement. “It’s cruel. It’s shameful. And our students deserve so much better.”

The Trump administration will reassign the department’s key programs involving K-12 education, higher education, Indian education and international studies through so-called interagency agreements with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State.

The reorganization marks one of the most significant overhauls to the department since its establishment during former President Jimmy Carter’s administration in 1979. Only Congress can create a federal agency and has the sole authority to approve its restructuring or elimination.

The move to restructure the agency, Trump officials argue, will lead to more efficiency by reducing administrative burdens and making it easier to pursue objectives like aligning education with workforce readiness.

Vulnerable students stand to be uniquely affected by the reorganization with the shift of K-12 programs to the Department of Labor raising major concerns about the wellbeing of economically disadvantaged students. The Labor Department will manage programs such as Title I, which provides additional resources to K-12 schools serving such students. Labor will also administer postsecondary education grant programs authorized under the Higher Education Act with the goal of ending an estimated labor shortage of over 700,000 skilled jobs nationally.

“Moving Title I, the largest federal funding stream providing important resources to the schools serving the lowest-income students in America, to the Department of Labor makes no sense,” said Denise Forte, president and CEO of The Education Trust, a nonprofit that advocates for equity in the nation’s schools.

“The Trump administration began the process of selling off the Department of Education for parts,” Forte said in a statement. “Further diminishing these offices… and sending them off to be run by agencies that work on public health and short-term training, which lack the skills, expertise, or capacity in education, isn’t about improving student outcomes. It’s about implementing a business model that transforms students into widgets instead of human beings who need support.”

Leaders of the nation’s two largest teacher unions, the NEA and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), characterized the restructuring as a betrayal of students and families.

“This move is neither streamlining nor reform — it’s an abdication and abandonment of America’s future,” AFT President Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “Rather than show leadership in helping all students seize their potential, it walks away from that responsibility.”

Similarly, Weingarten pushed back against the idea that the restructuring was about efficiency.

“What’s happening now isn’t about slashing red tape,” she said. “If that were the goal, teachers could help them do it …Instead, spreading services across multiple departments will create more confusion, more mistakes and more barriers for people who are just trying to access the support they need.”

Other changes affect groups of students who have traditionally needed extra support: The Department of the Interior will be the primary administrator for Indian Education programs, functioning as the point of contact for tribes and students. The Department of Health and Human Services will manage a program for student-parents in college called Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) and another related to foreign medical school accreditation standards. Finally, the Department of State will administer the Fulbright-Hays Program which awards grants to students, teachers, administrators and institutions.

It’s unclear how Native American students will fare with Indian Education programs moved to the Interior Department, an agency that manages natural resources and not the education of children. The future of the thousands of student-parents in college who rely on campus-based childcare grants is also uncertain, since moving the Child Care Access Means Parents in Schools program to the Health and Human Services Department could lead to disruptions in support for them that sidetrack their journey to a degree. Transferring responsibilities from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor undermines public education’s purpose, according to National Parents Union President Keri Rodrigues.

“At a time when the public demands transparency regarding the Epstein files, the Administration has instead launched a chaotic assault on education,” she said in a statement. “Families see this clearly: a political diversion, not a vision for better schools. Public education has never been about turning children into factory workers, it has always been about preparing creators, innovators, and dreamers who will shape the future of our nation.”

Democratic Sen. Patty Murray, who serves as vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, questioned the constitutionality of the interagency agreements.

“Donald Trump and Linda McMahon are lawlessly trying to fulfill Project 2025’s goal to abolish the Department of Education and pull the rug out from students in every part of the country,” stated the Washington lawmaker, a former preschool teacher.

Democratic Rep. Summer Lee, who serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Committee on Education and Workforce, called the shakeup “a direct assault on the students, families, and educators who depend on its essential protections.”

In her statement, the Pennsylvania lawmaker emphasized that even the education secretary has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to eliminate the department.

“Our children deserve better than political stunts that jeopardize their futures,” she said. “And let’s be clear: an uneducated electorate isn’t a by-product of authoritarianism — it’s a prerequisite for it. We will fight back.”

Critics of the department’s makeover also said they feared that its Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services would be the next to be reassigned to other federal agencies. The Trump administration has diminished their power and effectiveness through staff cuts and — in the case of OCR in particular — regional office closures that have led to civil rights cases not being investigated.

“Transferring OCR’s authority to another department that is ill-equipped to carry out its critical functions would all but guarantee that civil rights complaints will continue to be dismissed en masse without resolution,” Forte said. Such a development would disproportionately affect students of color, students with disabilities and English learners.

Education leaders, including the AFT, and lawmakers are already preparing to challenge the reorganization in court.

‘Selling off the Department of Education for parts’: The agency’s major overhaul faces fierce backlash was first published on The 19th and was republished with permission.

Read More

A scientist analyzes a virus sample in a laboratory.

U.S. science faces a growing crisis as NIH and NSF funding cuts shrink the STEM pipeline, threaten innovation, and push young researchers out of the field.

Getty Images, JazzIRT

A Broken Pipeline: Costing Us Our Next Generation of Scientists

Science has always relied on young innovators to drive progress. In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, still PhD students, founded Google. More recently, in 2020 and 2021, Kizzmekia Corbett, then a senior research fellow at the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Vaccine Research Center, led a team of scientists in developing the COVID-19 vaccine in under a year. These breakthroughs remind us that scientific advancement depends on nurturing a full pipeline of scientists—from young people learning about STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) to early-career researchers preparing the next transformative discovery.

Yet today, that pipeline is at risk with recent funding cuts. President Trump has aggressively scaled back government spending, promising to “get more bang for America’s research bucks.” In just nine short months, the administration canceled 7,737 research grants, totaling $8 billion from the NIH and the National Science Foundation (NSF). As a result, early-career scientists are leaving the field – what The Economist calls an “academic brain drain.” STEM programs for K-12 students are diminishing due to insufficient funding, despite evidence that early exposure to science motivates students to pursue STEM careers.

Keep Reading Show less
This Is Ground Zero in the Conservative Quest for More Patriotic and Christian Public Schools
an empty classroom with wooden desks and windows
Photo by 2y.kang on Unsplash

This Is Ground Zero in the Conservative Quest for More Patriotic and Christian Public Schools

The future that the Trump administration envisions for public schools is more patriotic, more Christian and less “woke.” Want to know how that might play out? Look to Oklahoma.

Oklahoma has spent the past few years reshaping public schools to integrate lessons about Jesus and encourage pride about America’s history, with political leaders and legislators working their way through the conservative agenda for overhauling education.

Keep Reading Show less
Trump’s attempt to gut special education office has some conservative parents on edge

student walks between yellow school buses

Marvin Joseph/Getty Images

Trump’s attempt to gut special education office has some conservative parents on edge

The Trump administration’s decision to lay off most employees within the U.S. Department of Education’s special education office was described by the president this week as part of cuts to “Democrat programs that we were opposed to.” This was news to many conservative parents of disabled children, as well as disability policy experts.

More than 7.3 million children in all 50 states rely on special education services, which are partially funded and enforced by the federal government.

Keep Reading Show less
Beyond Test Scores: How Dr. Shari Sweetnam's Approach Fosters
red apple fruit on four pyle books

Beyond Test Scores: How Dr. Shari Sweetnam's Approach Fosters

I interviewed Dr. Shari Sweetnam, a veteran educator and a PhD psychologist. Dr. Sweetnam (who is not a credentialed teacher) designed effective learning protocols; these methods spread, and many underperforming schools invited her to discuss these ideas and how they could be implemented to increase test scores and improve learning outcomes.

The recent assessment of core subjects reveals that many students are not meeting proficiency in the sciences or English, which means that, despite information being more accessible, future voters are likely to struggle when assessing the validity of political claims and making informed decisions. Poor outcomes in high school also translate to the highly partisan, unproductive dialogues we are seeing on university campuses. The sciences enable students to construct and evaluate arguments on logic, and a command of the language is necessary to interpret and form productive arguments in written or verbal forums. Another crucial aspect of this problem is that classrooms are not generally environments where students are engaged in debates or challenged to evaluate their ideas and biases. As a result, when they are exposed to different ideas, they are approaching arguments with hostility rather than seeking mutual understanding. This makes radical experimenters like Dr. Sweetnam essential; her story proves that testing different teaching methods can empower students, and that the trend of failing schools cannot be chalked up (only) to poor allocation of funds or systemic inequities. These approaches need to be extended to classroom conversation and how we teach students to communicate clearly and remain open to new perspectives.

Keep Reading Show less