Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Department of Education deceasing number of professions
Executive summary
The Biden-era to-present dismantling effort at the U.S. Department of Education has resulted in large staff reductions — including layoffs that at one point cut “nearly half” of the department’s workforce and specific reduction-in-force notices to hundreds of employees — and recent moves to transfer major program offices and billions in grants to other federal agencies as part of an administration strategy to wind the agency down [1] [2] [3]. Coverage shows officials say programs and funding will continue, while critics warn Congress located some offices inside Education and that shifting them raises legal and oversight concerns [4] [5].
1. Massive staff cuts, documented and consequential
News outlets report the Department of Education has lost thousands of positions since early 2025: one summary says roughly 1,950 employees left through cuts, buyouts and retirements and that an earlier action planned to lay off more than 1,300 staff to halve the agency [1] [2]. Other reporting puts recent RIF notices and court filings at 466 staff affected and notes several offices were left gutted, raising alarm about the department’s capacity to administer programs [6].
2. Offloading programs: what’s being moved and to whom
Officials announced interagency agreements to transfer large portfolios and program offices — elementary/secondary and postsecondary programs to Labor, certain child-care and accreditation tasks to HHS, Indian education to Interior, and international education to State — effectively moving day-to-day management of programs out of Education while retaining some central functions like the federal student loan portfolio [7] [4] [3].
3. Administration’s rationale: efficiency, “cutting red tape”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon and senior officials frame the changes as streamlining government and directing more money to classrooms, saying moves will “cut through layers of red tape” and refocus services on students and schools; fact sheets and statements characterize the transfers as administrative and not cuts to congressional funding levels [4] [8].
4. Legal and statutory questions raised by opponents
Multiple outlets report opponents argue some offices were placed inside the Education Department by Congress in 1979 and cannot simply be relocated by executive action; NPR and others say the administration’s sidestepping of Congress raises legal questions about whether the White House can reassign congressionally mandated offices without legislative approval [5] [9].
5. Practical worries: fewer “eyes on schools” and program continuity
Former and current federal education officials and advocates warn the layoffs and transfers could mean “fewer eyes on the condition of schools,” potentially eroding expertise and oversight for programs such as IDEA and services for homeless or migrant students; reporting documents that nearly all non‑senior staff in certain offices were laid off, fueling concerns about continuity of technical assistance and enforcement [10] [6].
6. Administration claims funding levels won’t change — but oversight will
The administration has said programs will remain funded at Congress-set levels even as management shifts to other agencies, but reporters and education groups stress that moving administration changes where expertise and enforcement reside — a separation between funding and functional oversight that opponents say will weaken protections and accountability [3] [4].
7. Political context and motivations: a long-standing conservative goal
Multiple outlets connect the shifts to a broader, long-standing conservative push to shrink or eliminate the Department of Education, pointing to an executive order signed in March seeking closure and to Project 2025’s blueprint as intellectual antecedents; supporters frame the effort as returning education to states, critics view it as an ideologically driven dismantling [11] [4] [7].
8. What the reporting does and does not show
Available reporting documents staff numbers, interagency agreements, and statements from officials and critics, and notes that the student loan portfolio and special education funding remain with Education for now [3] [4]. The sources do not provide exhaustive evidence on long‑term program outcomes, detailed legal rulings resolving the statutory disputes, or granular, audited budget shifts after the transfers — those specifics are “not found in current reporting” and will shape whether the changes materially reduce services or merely reorganize them [5] [3].
9. Competing perspectives you should weigh
Proponents (administration officials, sympathetic outlets) stress efficiency, reduced bureaucracy, and maintained congressional funding; opponents (teacher unions, education advocates, some reporters) warn of lost institutional knowledge, legal overreach, and weakened enforcement of student protections [8] [12] [6]. Each side has political aims: the administration advances a policy priority to shrink federal footprint, while unions and advocates aim to preserve federal oversight and protections.
10. Bottom line for readers
Reporting confirms large staff cuts and concrete program transfers to other agencies, accompanied by competing claims about continued funding and legal authority; the net effect on students and oversight hinges on implementation details and court or congressional responses that current sources do not yet fully document [2] [13] [5]. Monitor follow‑up reporting and official legal determinations to see whether transfers are temporary administrative steps or a durable dismantling requiring legislative action [9] [5].