Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Supreme Court Greenlights Project 2025 Plan to Dismantle  Education Department

Supreme Court Greenlights Project 2025 Plan to Dismantle  Education Department

In the summer of 2025, the Trump administration’s education agenda is beginning to mirror the blueprint laid out in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025.

Getty Images, Maskot

This past spring and summer, The Fulcrum published a 30-part, nonpartisan series examining Project 2025—a sweeping policy blueprint for a potential second Trump administration. Our analysis explored the proposed reforms and their far-reaching implications across government. Now, as the 2025 administration begins to take shape, it’s time to move from speculation to reality.

In this follow-up, we turn our focus to one of the most consequential—and quietly unfolding—chapters of that blueprint: the dismantling of public education.


In the summer of 2025, the Trump administration’s education agenda is beginning to mirror—often word for word—the blueprint laid out in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025. While the administration has offered only tepid public acknowledgment of the 900-page “Mandate for Leadership,” the alignment between its proposals and federal actions is increasingly difficult to ignore.

We are witnessing the slow-motion dismantling of public education in America—not through a single sweeping law but through a myriad of quiet cuts. And it’s happening according to a plan that was published in broad daylight in Project 2025.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s policy blueprint for a second Trump administration, reads like a manifesto for the privatization of education and the rollback of civil rights.

It calls for abolishing the Department of Education, eliminating Title I funding for low-income schools, and redefining “sex” in federal policy to exclude transgender students. It proposes ending income-driven student loan repayment and censoring curriculum that addresses race, gender, or inequality. These aren’t just ideas on paper anymore. They’re becoming policy.

What Project 2025 Proposed

Project 2025 calls for a sweeping transformation of the federal government, and the Department of Education is among its primary targets. The document proposes:

  • Abolishing the Department of Education entirely.
  • Phasing out Title I funding and eliminating Head Start.
  • Redirecting public funds to private and religious schools.
  • Rolling back civil rights protections, including Title IX.
  • Redefining “sex” as biological sex at birth.
  • Privatizing student loans and ending income-driven repayment.
  • Censoring curriculum related to race, gender, and American history.

These proposals are not just ideological—many are now operational and underway.

What Has Already Been Implemented

Mass Layoffs and Budget Cuts

In March, the administration terminated nearly 1,300 Department of Education employees—almost half the agency’s workforce. The Office for Civil Rights and student aid divisions were hit hardest. In June, $6 billion in federal education funding was frozen, affecting after-school programs, English language instruction, and teacher training. The Institute of Education Sciences lost $900 million, terminating 89 contracts and 29 equity-related grants.

Supreme Court Endorsement of Executive Overreach

On July 14, the Supreme Court issued a 6–3 decision overturning a lower court injunction, effectively greenlighting the mass layoffs described above. The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to shrink the Department of Education by attrition.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a blistering dissent, warned that the decision “hands the Executive the power to repeal statutes by firing all those necessary to carry them out,” calling the majority’s action “indefensible” and a grave threat to the separation of powers.

The Court’s ruling transforms Project 2025’s blueprint for dismantling the Department of Education from concept to actionable precedent. What was once a controversial policy proposal is now being executed with the judicial branch’s imprimatur.

Civil Rights Rollbacks

The Office for Civil Rights has been effectively sidelined. Investigations into discrimination complaints have stalled, and a new executive order mandates that federal education policy recognize only biological sex—requiring schools to use pronouns and names assigned at birth.

Mental Health Defunding

A coalition of 16 state attorneys general is suing the administration for halting funds for school-based mental health services. The cuts jeopardize support for hundreds of thousands of students, particularly those in underserved communities.

What’s Still Under Consideration

While some proposals remain legally or politically constrained, they are clearly in motion:

  • A draft executive order is reportedly circulating that would initiate the dismantling of the Department of Education. Full abolition would require congressional approval, but the administration is already shrinking its footprint through attrition and reorganization.
  • The administration has paused new awards under income-driven repayment plans and is exploring privatization of federal student loan servicing.
  • Federal grants are being reviewed for alignment with “President Trump’s priorities,” with particular scrutiny on programs that include content on race, gender, or immigration.

Why It Matters

The Department of Education was created not just to administer funding but to ensure equal access to education—a cornerstone of a democratic society. Project 2025 reframes education as a battleground for cultural control, and the Trump administration appears to be executing that vision with precision.

The consequences are already visible:

  • School districts are scrambling to fill budget gaps.
  • Civil rights complaints are languishing without review.
  • Students—especially LGBTQ+ and low-income youth—are left without critical support.

As courts weigh the legality of these moves and Congress debates the future of federal education policy, one thing is clear: the dismantling of public education is no longer theoretical. It is happening now, in real time, and its architects are following a playbook that was published for all to see.

Public education is not perfect. But it is one of the last remaining institutions where Americans of all backgrounds come together to learn, grow, and imagine a shared future. To dismantle it is to weaken the very foundation of our democracy.

We cannot afford to look away. We must ask ourselves: What kind of country do we want to be? One where education is a public good or a private commodity? One where every child is seen and supported, or one where only the privileged thrive?

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

Read More

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

Alyssa West from Austin holds up a sign during the Fight the Trump Takeover rally at the Texas Capitol on Saturday, August. 16, 2025.

(Aaron E. Martinez/Austin American-Statesman via Getty Images)

When Politicians Draw Their Own Victories: Why and How To End Gerrymandering

From MAGA Republicans to progressive Democrats to those of us in the middle, Americans want real change – and they’re tired of politics as usual. They’re craving authenticity, real reform, and an end to the status quo. More and more, voters seem to be embracing disruption over the empty promises of establishment politicians, who too often live by the creed that “one bad idea deserves a bigger one.” Just look at how both parties are handling gerrymandering in Texas and California, and it’s difficult to see it as anything other than both parties trying to rig elections in their favor.

Instead of fixing the system, politicians are fueling a turbocharged redistricting arms race ahead of high-stakes midterm 2026 elections that will determine control of the U.S. Congress. In Texas, Republicans just redrew congressional lines, likely guaranteeing five new Republican seats, which has sparked Democratic strongholds like California and New York to threaten their own gerrymandered counterattacks.

Keep ReadingShow less
Declaration of Independence
When, in 2026, the United States marks the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, we should take pride in our collective journey.
Douglas Sacha/Getty Images

What Exactly Does "All Men Are Created Equal" Mean in the Declaration of Independence?

I used to think the answer was obvious; it was self-evident. But it's not, at least not in today's political context. MAGA Republicans and Democrats have a very different take on the meaning of this phrase in the Declaration.

I said in my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An America Manifesto, that it is in the interpretation of our founding documents that both the liberal and conservative ideologies that have run throughout our history can be found. This is a perfect example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Washington, DC, skyline
A country in crisis needs to call a truce with its government
Michael Lee/Getty Images

Defending Democracy in the Heart of Democracy - Washington, D.C.

The Crisis in Our Capital

Washington, D.C. is at the center of American democracy. Yet today, its residents — taxpayers, veterans, workers, families, people like you an I, American citizens — are being stripped of their right to self-government. The recent surge of out-of-state National Guard troops into the District under federal order has highlighted a deep flaw in our system: D.C. does not have the same authority to govern itself that the 50 states enjoy.Keith

We are told this militarization is about “public safety,” but violent crime in D.C. is near a 30-year low . What we are witnessing is not a crime-fighting measure, but an unprecedented encroachment on local authority. The consent of the people — the foundation of democracy — is being sidelined to pursue a political or even personal agenda.

The Ethical and Constitutional Problem

Legally, a president can request National Guard support through interstate compacts. But legality is not the same as legitimacy. True democracy requires consent, not unilateral fiat. Under the Home Rule Act, federal control over D.C. is only supposed to last 30 days in emergencies. Yet the use of state-based National Guard units circumvents this safeguard and seems to demonstrate a hidden agenda. This is a loophole — one that undermines D.C.’s right to self-governance and sets a dangerous precedent for federal overreach.

An Urgent Legislative Answer

It is not enough to critique the abuse of power — we must fix it. That is why I have drafted the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act, which closes this loophole and restores constitutional balance. The draft bill is now available for public review on my congressional campaign website:

Read the D.C. Defense of Self-Government Act here

This legislation would require explicit, expedited approval from Congress before federal or state National Guard troops can be deployed into the District. It ensures no president — Republican. Democrat or Independent — can bypass the will of the people of Washington, D.C.

This moment also reminds us of a deeper injustice that has lingered for generations: the people of Washington, D.C., remain without full representation in Congress. Over 700,000 Americans—more than the populations of several states—are denied a voting voice in the very body that holds sway over their lives. This lack of representation makes it easier for their self-government to be undermined, as we see today. That must change. We will need to revisit serious legislation to finally fix this injustice and secure for D.C. residents the same democratic rights every other American enjoys.

The Bigger Picture

This fight is not about partisan politics. It is about whether America will live up to its founding ideals of self-rule and accountability. Every voter, regardless of party, should ask: if the capital of our democracy can be militarized without the consent of the people, what stops it from happening in other cities across America?

A Call to Action

When I ran for president, my wife told me I was going to make history. I told her making history didn’t matter to me — what mattered to me then and what matters to me now is making a difference. I'm not in office yet so I have no legal authority to act. But, I am still a citizen of the United States, a veteran of the United States Air Force, someone who has taken the oath of office, many times since 1973. That oath has no expiration date. Today, that difference is about ensuring the residents of D.C. — and every American city — are protected from unchecked federal overreach.

I urge every reader to share this bill with your representatives. Demand that Congress act now. We can’t wait until the mid-terms. Demand that they defend democracy where it matters most — in the heart of our capital — because FBI and DEA agents patrolling the streets of our nation's capital does not demonstrate democracy. Quite the contrary, it clearly demonstrates autocracy.

Davenport is a candidate for U.S. Congress, NC-06.