Did Trump’s proposal to slash billions from the education funding pass?
Executive summary
Congress rejected the administration’s broad blueprint to slash billions from federal education spending: appropriators on the House and Senate moved to maintain most Education Department funding and proposed roughly $79 billion in discretionary Education Department funding for FY2026—well above the Trump administration’s request of about $66.7 billion—which means the president’s proposed multi‑billion cuts did not pass into law [1] [2]. Nonetheless, the administration has used other tools—grant cancellations, interagency transfers, and an apparent withholding of previously approved funds—to effectively erase or delay some funding in practice, a separate front of the fight over education dollars [3] [4] [5].
1. Congressional pushback: the legislative answer was “no”
Bipartisan appropriators drafted a fiscal‑2026 education package that preserves core programs and rejects the sharp reductions in the White House’s FY26 budget; the joint Senate and House panels proposed keeping Education Dept. discretionary funding around $79 billion, reversing the administration’s ~15.3% cut request that would have lowered the agency to about $66.7 billion [2]. Lawmakers signaled explicitly that funding for Title I and IDEA is on track to remain level year‑over‑year, that Pell, TRIO, and GEAR UP were being restored or held steady, and that the Office for Civil Rights budget would be maintained rather than slashed by a third as the White House sought [1] [2] [5].
2. Why the White House proposal failed to become law
The president’s budget is a request—Congress holds the power of the purse—and appropriators responded by writing explanatory language that rejects administrative attempts to move congressionally allocated responsibilities or funds to other agencies, arguing that no legal authority exists for the Education Department to transfer core duties and that interagency agreements undercut state and district funding stability [2] [5]. That legislative pushback is the central reason the White House’s proposed multi‑billion cuts did not “pass”: appropriations committees put forward an alternative that preserves most programs targeted by the administration [2] [1].
3. But the administration didn’t stop at the budget request—practical cuts followed
Independent of Congress’s budgetary response, the Trump administration has taken executive actions that have the effect of reducing funds—terminating or canceling grants, withholding sums that Congress already approved, and moving programs to other agencies—actions that have prompted legal challenges and bipartisan outcry [4] [3] [5]. State officials and university leaders describe these maneuvers as politically motivated pressure—and in higher education the administration paired investigations and threats with efforts to condition or withhold federal research dollars, a tactic described by critics as coercive [6] [7].
4. The politics and alternative narratives at play
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that consolidating and block‑granting programs will give states flexibility and root out what they characterize as waste or ideological programming, while critics—including district leaders, teacher unions, and many Democrats—say the cuts and administrative transfers would hollow out supports for low‑income students, students with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations [8] [9] [5]. Conservative architects tied to Project 2025 have downplayed some of the most drastic public proposals in testimony, even as administrators cancel billions in grants—revealing an internal tension between ideological goals and the political limits of what Congress will accept [10].
5. Legal fights and real‑world impacts complicate the “did it pass” question
Legally and legislatively, the answer is clear: Congress moved to reject the proposal and to maintain most funding levels, so the president’s requested cuts did not become appropriations law [2] [1]. Practically, however, the administration’s unilateral moves—freezing or rescinding previously allocated funds, terminating grants, and attempting to rehome programs—have already produced disruptions for districts and universities; those effects are ongoing and have spawned court challenges and state responses that the reporting documents but do not fully resolve [3] [4] [7].
6. Bottom line and limits of reporting
Bottom line: Trump’s formal proposal to slash billions from education funding did not pass Congress—the appropriations process pushed back and preserved most federal education investments for FY2026—yet the administration’s executive actions have created parallel, often contested, funding losses that continue to affect schools and campuses [2] [1] [3]. Reporting establishes these two concurrent realities—Congressional rejection and administrative disruption—but does not fully quantify the ultimate net impact of executive grant cancellations and program transfers, which remain subject to litigation and future appropriations actions [4] [5].