Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

Five men sitting on one side of a table, as a panel at an event.

Congressional Inaction Raises Constitutional Change Alternative

Man holding American flag

This Is What Makes America Great

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
David L. Nevins
By David L. NevinsMar 15, 2025
David L. Nevins
David L. Nevins serves as publisher of The Fulcrum. Additionally, Nevins serves as co-founder and Board Chairman of the Bridge Alliance. Nevins brings business acumen, vision and a tireless this-must-and-can-be-done zeal to the burgeoning movement to bridge divides to transform the political process. As a business leader, Nevins excels at building bridges between people and organizations from the right, left and center for civilized conversation and then action. He co-founded the Bridge Alliance because, as he says, “No matter how well managed and how well funded anyone organization is, significant political reform will not happen without an alliance to further collaborative interactions. Together we can and will raise the collective impact of all.” He is a member of the Aspen Institute Society of Fellows, with a focus on the Aspen Rodel Fellowship in Public Leadership, he established and continues to work with The Nevins Democracy Leaders program at Penn State University. Nevins graduated with honors in economics from Penn State in 1969 and received an M.B.A. in finance from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1971.
See More Writings by author

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



Latest news

"I Voted" sticker
Elections

New Tool Reveals Which Americans Hold Outsized Voting Power

Man dressed in jaguar costume
Community

Why Language Access Matters for Indigenous New Yorkers

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico
Elections

Are Independent Voters About to Flip Texas?

Woman sitting and typing on laptop on her lap.
Media & Technology

AI’s Information Crisis: Why Trust Is Harder to Sustain Than Ever

Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026