The Fall and Rise of the US Department of Education

by Watson Scott Swail, President & Senior Research Scientist, Educational Policy Institute

The proverbial axe fell yesterday in DC with a cut of approximately 1,900 US Department of Education staff, equivalent to almost half the entire staff of the department. Officially, around 1,300 were fired; 600 had already taken buyouts. The Administration promised that cuts won’t impact Pell Grants, student loans, and other sensitive program operations. But there is plenty of damage that is being done.

Linda McMahon, the Wrestling CEO turned Secretary of Education, had this to say: “This is a significant step toward restoring the greatness of the United States education system.” At best, an incredibly na?ve statement to make about what the Administration did and about the impact of the federal government on state-based education (n.b., the federal government provides 1 education dollar for every 8 provided by states and localities).

For the past 45 years, the role of the US Department of Education has been very targeted and precise. Relative to the entire federal budget, the four percent spent on education provides funding support for states across the country via essential safety net services.

One of the primary purposes of the Department of Education is to provide some level of equity in education across states. The Department was enacted during the Carter Administration largely because learning outcomes shifted dramatically by state, with southern states perpetually lagging other states in education spending and outcomes. Even today, 8 of the bottom 10 states in per pupil funding reside in the southern US. The 11th is also a southern state, as is the 14th, 15th, and 16th. Put another way, all but 3 states in the bottom 16 are southern states. The US Department of Education doesn’t fix these issues, but it does provide critical resources to help states leap forward. Unfortunately, some states simply don’t seem to value education quite the same as others. The Department tries to provide services for all students, regardless of state.

To provide some insight into what we may expect from these draconian cuts, here are four simple examples.

The Office of Civil Rights will be decimated, leaving no one to watchdog the states or the schools and colleges (we all call it OCR, which is not to be confused with optical character recognition!!). OCR enforces federal laws that protect individual liberties, including sex and racial discrimination. Some readers may see a trend in Trumpian policy removals here.

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) will be drastically cut. Their work documents student progress for policymakers and practitioners and provides evidence of best practices in teaching and learning. These will likely be gone or deeply scarred, leaving policymakers around the country pinned to anecdote rather than data (read this Swail Letter from February 13, 2025 for more insight into this issue).

The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and other programs for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary students will be hindered. OSEP provides formula funding to states to provide supports for students with disabilities as authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). If the direct funding of these programs isn’t altered, they will be severely handicapped (no pun) by the loss of staff to administer these programs.

ESSER (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund) funds provided almost $200 billion a year to states to assist their education departments in the post-COVID environment. These funds have recently ended but provides an example of the safety net that the USDE provides to states.

Secretary McMahon stated yesterday that the Administration hopes to eliminate “bureaucratic bloat” and move funds directly to the states, but the bloat isn’t really at the Department. One could argue there is no bloat at all. For all the programs that the US Department of Education manages, and the fact that three quarters of staff work in the student loan agency, they should be commended for their efficiency and efficacy. Additionally, the Department has an Office of General Council to ensure that fraud is minimized to the largest degree possible.

Another caveat is that the Administration has said they will simply move money to the states. The Department of Education already does that, as I’ve already acknowledged. But if the Department just hands over the funds, the savings in budget will be miniscule at best. Federal expenditures will remain similar. There will be some savings, but not nearly enough to make a dent to allow for a $4.5 trillion tax package. A second caveat is that the lesser, redder (it’s a word) states will remain lesser because they will likely use the funds to offset state tax cuts, supplant current education expenditures, or use the money for something silly like charter vouchers, a bad policy idea in many ways.

Giving funds directly to the states with little or no directional supervision will be a problem. States tend to use their funds the way they want with little regard to federal expectations or even instructions. As mentioned, funds can often be used to supplant state funds, which is opposite of the federal intent. Given that the current administration is very focused on fraud, moving funds to the states can be problematic. The ESSER funds previously mentioned have some history with fraud. But in this case, the fraud took place at the state level, not within the US Department of Education. This would be an ongoing issue with no federal employees, and no general counsel, to provide oversight in how federal, taxpayer-generated funds are being spent.

My bet is what will happen in the not-to-distant future is that a Democratic Administration will replace the GOP in the 2028 presidential election. I also expect Democrats to take the House and perhaps the Senate in 2026. This isn't wishful thinking; there is electoral precedent that either the House, the Senate, or both flip in mid-term elections. We saw this during Bush’s (W) second term*, and for Obama, Trump, and Biden in their first terms.

If and when this happens, the new Administration will rebuild the Department of Education and most other federal Departments, including the IRS and the NIH, at a significant cost to taxpayers. It will end up costing us far more than will be saved today.

Even today, we are beginning to see signs of fray within the GOP. While minor at this point, a handful of GOP house members are beginning to argue against the ways of the “Musk Administration.” Once the cuts begin to be felt in their home districts, more representatives will cave. The pressure will be tangible.

For now, damage is occurring daily. Speculation on the future doesn't do much for what we are experiencing today. Damage is being done. To students, families, and communities around the country.

?

*Bush was flushed by 911 during his first term and increased the number of seats in the House and Senate during his first mid-term.

?