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

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