Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Just The Facts: Impact of Department of Education Cuts

News

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

Pacific heights , San Francisco, CA

High view over Pacific heights and San Francisco Bay at sunset

Getty Images

Class A for Residents, Class B for Investors

Neighborhood residents should be able to build ownership without surrendering control to whoever brings the largest check. I propose a neighborhood corporation with Class A shares for residents and Class B shares for outside investors. Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow could examine the first model, then make its documents and lessons available to other neighborhoods.

The distinction must mean something. Class A would protect resident governance. Class B would let outside capital participate on disclosed economic terms. The corporation would own assets it voluntarily acquires and operate agreed services. It would govern those assets and contracts; government authority over zoning, taxes and public streets would remain subject to public law.

Keep ReadingShow less
​A demonstrator holds a sign

A demonstrator holds a sign in front of the Federal Courthouse in Detroit, Michigan.

(Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty Images)

Beyond Airstrikes: Why America Must Rethink Its Counterterrorism Strategy in Nigeria

When American forces carried out airstrikes against suspected Islamic State militants in northwest Nigeria on Christmas Day 2025, the operation offered a glimpse of renewed security cooperation between Washington and Abuja. But for Nigerians living in communities threatened by terrorism, kidnapping and armed attacks, a more pressing question remained: Would the strikes make their lives any safer?

That question deserves attention in Washington. The United States has spent decades helping Nigeria combat terrorism through military equipment, intelligence sharing and training. Yet armed violence continues to disrupt everyday life across northern Nigeria, raising doubts about how the success of American counterterrorism assistance should be measured.

Keep ReadingShow less
Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, CA

Colourful vibrant Victorian style houses at Alamo Square in San Francisco, California, USA

Getty Images

Fund the Community DataBank

San Francisco residents need an organization that can follow public money and decisions before the damage is done. I propose a Community DataBank, beginning with Pacific Heights and Cow Hollow, supported by a modest, publicly approved allocation of our taxes. Residents should be able to find out what government is doing without requiring everyone to research City Hall.

My earlier proposal placed two desks outside the Mayor’s Office, staffed by neighborhood association members who would watch who goes in and out and follow the public business behind those visits. The DataBank would give those desks useful work and reliable records. A visitor’s presence would prompt a question; official documents would establish what actually happened.

Keep ReadingShow less
US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

USA and China trade relations, cooperation strategy. US America and China flags on chess king on a chessboard.

Getty Images

America’s Gridlock Is Beijing’s Best Argument

Americans tend to treat democracy’s superiority as settled, and the long-run evidence backs them up. A major study by MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and colleagues found that countries that democratize end up about 20 percent richer per person within a generation. But most of the world does not grade governments on long-run studies. For billions of people outside the wealthy West, the test is simpler: does the power stay on, are food prices steady, is there work, and do the roads get built? When the stomach is empty, a ballot can feel like a luxury.

China understands this and sells its model on exactly those terms. Its GDP per capita has climbed from about $300 in 1980 to nearly $15,000 today, by IMF figures, and the World Bank credits it with lifting some 800 million people out of extreme poverty. India, the world’s largest democracy, started from a similar place and sits near $2,800. Beijing’s centralized system, paired with Deng Xiaoping’s market reforms, built power plants, factories and rail lines at a pace India’s more deliberative politics has not matched. Anyone who values liberty will find little to admire in that model. It does explain why the model sells.

Keep ReadingShow less