Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less