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.
Trump tries to abolish the ferment of education
Executive summary
President Trump’s education agenda in 2025 centers on shrinking the federal role in K–12 and higher education, restricting programs labeled “DEI” or “gender ideology,” moving oversight toward states, and using funding pressure to change campus policies; the White House order explicitly requires terminating programs it deems illegal DEI or gender‑ideology activity [1]. Critics say these actions—laid‑off Education Department staff, paused university funding, and proposals from Project 2025—could hollow out federal enforcement of civil‑rights and special‑education laws; advocates warn that leaving enforcement to states risks unequal protections for vulnerable students [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. “Dismantle and devolve”: The administration’s stated plan
The White House has issued directives to reassert parental and state control and to condition federal Education Department funds on compliance with new Administration policy, including ending programs it labels “diversity, equity, and inclusion” or those promoting “gender ideology” [1]. Related executive actions and memoranda also push universities to change admissions transparency and end what the administration calls “race‑based” preferences [6].
2. Project 2025: The blueprint pushing policy changes
Project 2025—an influential conservative policy roadmap—has helped shape ideas the administration is pursuing: moving or eliminating some federal education functions, shifting civil‑rights enforcement away from the Education Department, and using funding and regulatory levers to reshape higher education priorities [7] [5]. While Trump has at times distanced himself from Project 2025, reporting shows the project’s proposals closely align with actions under the current administration [7] [5].
3. Enforcement by state actors: What advocates fear
Reporting and think‑tank analysis indicate the administration seeks to shift enforcement and oversight responsibilities to states, including in special education and civil‑rights investigations; disability advocates and some parents fear many states lack the resources or will to provide consistent protections formerly monitored federally [4] [5]. Brookings notes that changes to special‑education funding and oversight would require Congressional action to alter IDEA; the secretary cannot unilaterally waive IDEA’s requirements [5].
4. Personnel cuts and operational effects inside ED
News outlets report deep staff reductions and layoffs within the Education Department, including offices that handle special‑education and civil‑rights enforcement, prompting concerns that the federal government’s ability to disperse funds and enforce laws is materially weakened [2] [3]. The New York Times frames these cuts as part of an effort that could “functionally wipe out” core agency functions if layoffs persist [2].
5. Using funding as leverage: universities and high‑profile cases
The administration has paused federal funds to universities to press for changes on campus conduct, antisemitism responses, and admissions practices; for example, pausing funds to Columbia reportedly led to agreement on certain demands, while Harvard sued over what it called unlawful overreach [8]. The pause‑and‑negotiate tactic illustrates how financial pressure is being used to enforce policy priorities without new legislation [8].
6. Competing perspectives: supporters’ arguments vs. critics’ warnings
Supporters—including some school board members and conservative activists—frame the moves as returning education to parents and states, protecting students from “hyper‑sensitivity” around race and gender and refocusing schools on basics like reading, writing and math [9]. Critics, legal scholars, civil‑rights advocates and some parents say the actions amount to dismantling federal protections and could leave students—especially disabled students and marginalized groups—without consistent legal recourse [4] [3] [2].
7. Legal and congressional constraints: what can and can’t change quickly
Analysts note important limits: major changes to IDEA or the federal special‑education funding formula require Congress; the Education secretary cannot lawfully waive IDEA’s requirements alone [5]. Likewise, some legal challenges have already been mounted against the administration’s bans (for example, parts of the K‑12 DEI ban were ruled unlawful in at least one case referenced in reporting), underscoring that courts and Congress remain key check points [4].
8. What to watch next
Key indicators to track are (a) whether Congress amends IDEA or other statutes to codify funding or oversight changes, (b) ongoing litigation outcomes over ED directives and funding pauses, and (c) concrete state responses—whether states build capacity to replace federal oversight or leave gaps in enforcement—since outcomes for students will hinge on those developments [5] [2] [4].
Limitations: reporting in these sources describes actions, proposals and advocacy positions but does not provide a comprehensive empirical assessment of student outcomes after the policies; available sources do not mention long‑term academic impacts beyond the legal and administrative shifts cited [1] [2] [5].