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.
What is happening in the department of education
Executive summary
The Department of Education is undergoing an administration-led reorganization that moves major offices and programs to other federal agencies via interagency agreements — including shifting K–12 and postsecondary offices to the Labor Department and moving programs to Interior, HHS and State — as part of a broader Trump administration effort many officials describe as a step toward dismantling the agency [1] [2]. The Education Department says these moves are meant to “streamline” operations and serve as a “proof of concept” for Congress; critics inside the agency and unions call the actions disruptive, potentially unlawful, and harmful to students and staff morale [3] [2] [4].
1. What was announced and what’s being moved
The department has signed multiple interagency agreements to transfer responsibility for several offices and programs: the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Postsecondary Education are being shifted to the Labor Department; the Office of Indian Education moves to Interior; international education and Fulbright-related programs move to State; and certain campus child-care and foreign medical school accreditation functions will move to HHS, among other transfers [1] [2] [5].
2. Administration’s stated rationale: cutting red tape and returning power to states
Officials frame the plan as an effort to “break up the federal education bureaucracy,” reduce administrative burdens, and leverage other agencies’ expertise to be “more efficient and economical,” with the stated goal of refocusing the federal role and returning education power to states [3] [5] [2]. The department calls the interagency deals a proof-of-concept designed to show Congress how duties could be permanently reassigned [2].
3. Critics inside government and labor warn of harm and illegality
Employees and the union representing Education Department workers say morale is low and characterize the moves as destructive and possibly unlawful, arguing the actions strip programs that serve students, families and educators and create traumatic disruption for agency staff and stakeholders [4]. AFGE Local 252 and some workers have publicly called the steps “unlawful” and damaging to access and civil-rights enforcement [4].
4. Media and watchdog framing: a major step toward dismantling the agency
Multiple news outlets describe the reassignments as the most sweeping effort yet to dismantle the Education Department and part of a longer-term administration goal — reinforced by an earlier executive order seeking closure of the department — even though only Congress can formally abolish it [6] [1] [7]. Reporting notes that spreading tens of billions in K–12 and higher-education responsibilities across other departments is unprecedented and raises questions about continuity and oversight [2] [5].
5. Legal and practical limits: Congress still controls abolition; reassignments use contracting authorities
Analysts and reporting emphasize that the department cannot be unilaterally closed without congressional action; the administration is instead using interagency contracting authorities (e.g., the Economy Act) and agreements as a workaround to move functions while urging Congress to codify the changes [6] [7] [2]. The department has said it will show lawmakers a working model and then seek legislation to make the changes permanent [2].
6. Impact questions left open by current reporting
Coverage raises but does not yet fully answer operational questions such as how special education enforcement, civil-rights oversight, or the management of the federal student-loan portfolio will be handled long term, how budgets and accountability lines will be preserved, and which employees or programs face permanent versus temporary reassignment [5] [8]. Available sources do not mention many program-specific implementation details and timelines beyond initial transfers and announcements [5] [9].
7. Competing political narratives and public opinion signals
Supporters and some conservative outlets argue moving functions and preserving K–12 funding while shifting administration to other agencies increases efficiency and can be popular with voters once details are explained; critics see the plan as ideological dismantling that risks dismantling enforcement and supports from Project 2025 advocates [10] [7] [8]. Reporters note a close link between the administration’s moves and conservative policy blueprints that call for reducing the federal footprint on education [7] [8].
8. What to watch next
Look for (a) more signed interagency agreements and which specific programs they cover, (b) how Congress responds to requests to codify transfers or to block them, (c) federal court or union challenges claiming unlawful action, and (d) reporting on student-facing outcomes such as loan servicing, civil-rights enforcement and supports for high-need students as responsibilities move [2] [4] [5].
Limitations: reporting is evolving and many operational details and long-term outcomes are not yet public; assertions above rely on official announcements and contemporaneous reporting in the provided sources [3] [1] [2].