Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Just The Facts: Impact of Department of Education Cuts

Just The Facts: Impact of Department of Education Cuts
The future of civic education
Getty Images

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

How many jobs are being cut from the Department of Education, and what percentage of the total workforce is that?


The department's staff will be reduced from 4,133 employees to about 2,183 employees. This significant downsizing aligns with broader efforts to restructure the department.

This significant downsizing aligns with broader efforts to restructure the department.

What are the broader efforts to restructure the Department of Education?

The broader efforts to restructure the U.S. Department of Education are part of a larger initiative to reduce federal oversight and shift control to states and local governments. Here are some key aspects of the restructuring:

  1. Shifting Control to States: The plan emphasizes giving states and local governments more authority over education policies and reducing federal mandates.
  2. Reducing Federal Bureaucracy: The department's workforce and budget are being significantly downsized, with some functions being transferred to other federal agencies or state governments.
  3. Restructuring Student Loan Programs: Oversight of federal student loans may be shifted to other agencies, focusing on privatizing loan servicing.
  4. Scaling Back Civil Rights Oversight: The Office for Civil Rights, which enforces policies on gender and racial equity in schools, is facing reductions in its role.
  5. Eliminating "Woke" Curriculum Policies: The administration aims to reduce federal influence over school curricula, particularly in critical race theory and social-emotional learning areas.
  6. Expanding School Choice Initiatives: Federal funding for low-income schools may be reallocated to support school choice programs.

These changes align with longstanding conservative goals to minimize federal involvement in education.

What are the specifics of the plan to restructure Student Loan Programs

The restructuring of student loan programs involves several significant changes:

  • Suspension of Income-Driven Repayment Plans: The Department of Education has halted enrollment in four popular income-driven repayments (IDR) plans, including Income-Based Repayment, Pay As You Earn, and the SAVE plan. These plans previously allowed borrowers to make payments based on their income and family size, with the promise of loan forgiveness after 20 or 25 years.
  • Privatization of Loan Servicing: Oversight of federal student loans is being shifted to private entities, aiming to streamline operations and reduce federal involvement.
  • Elimination of Loan Forgiveness Pathways: The suspension of IDR plans also impacts pathways to loan forgiveness, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, leaving borrowers with fewer affordable repayment options.
  • Focus on Simplification: The restructuring aims to simplify the repayment process, potentially consolidating multiple repayment plans into fewer options.

These changes are part of broader efforts to reduce federal oversight and align with the administration's goals of minimizing government involvement in education.

Why and how does the Trump Administration want to reduce the Department of Education's Civil Rights oversight?

The Trump administration's efforts to cut back the Department of Education's civil rights oversight are part of a broader initiative to reduce federal involvement in education and shift responsibilities to states. Here's the reasoning and approach behind these changes:

  • Reasoning: The administration argues that reducing federal oversight will streamline operations, eliminate what they see as "bureaucratic bloat," and allow states more control over education policies. They believe this approach will lead to more efficient and localized decision-making.
  • How It's Being Done:
  • Staff Reductions: The Office for Civil Rights, which enforces policies on gender, racial equity, and disability rights in schools, is facing significant staff cuts. This downsizing limits its capacity to investigate and address complaints.
  • Policy Changes: The administration has redefined what constitutes discrimination in schools, narrowing the scope of federal intervention. For example, they have rolled back policies related to racial and gender equity and reduced protections for transgender students.

How will changes in the Department of education specifically attempt to limit what they call "Woke Education"

The Department of Education's efforts to limit what they refer to as "woke education" focus on reducing federal funding and support for programs and initiatives tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as critical race theory (CRT). Here are some specifics:

  • Elimination of DEI Initiatives: The department has dissolved councils and programs dedicated to DEI, such as the Diversity & Inclusion Council, and has removed related resources from its public platforms.
  • Cancellation of Grants and Contracts: Over $600 million in grants for teacher training programs that included DEI, CRT, and social justice topics have been terminated. Additionally, $350 million in contracts with organizations promoting equity audits and DEI training have been canceled.
  • Policy Revisions: The department has withdrawn its Equity Action Plan and archived guidance documents that promoted DEI or CRT in schools.
  • Focus on "Neutral" Education: The administration aims to reorient education policies toward what they describe as "meaningful learning" rather than "divisive ideologies."

These changes are part of a broader push to reduce federal influence over school curricula and align with the administration's priorities.

All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund


Read More

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes

Why Fed Independence Is a Cornerstone of Democracy—and Why It’s Under Threat

In an era of rising polarization and performative politics, few institutions remain as consequential and as poorly understood by citizens as the Federal Reserve.

While headlines swirl around inflation, interest rates, and stock market reactions, the deeper story is often missed: the Fed’s independence is not just a technical matter of monetary policy. It’s a democratic safeguard.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oil drilling platform with a fracking rig.

An oil drilling platform with a fracking rig extracts valuable resources from beneath the earth's surface.

Getty Images, grandriver

Trump Says America’s Oil Industry Is Cleaner Than Other Countries’. New Data Shows Massive Emissions From Texas Wells.

Hakim Dermish moved to the small South Texas town of Catarina in 2002 in search of a rural lifestyle on a budget. The property where he lived with his wife didn’t have electricity or sewer lines at first, but that didn’t bother him.

“Even if we lived in a cardboard box, no one could kick us out,” Dermish said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less