The Gutting of the Department of Education Is Worse Than You Deem

Established by Congress in 1979, the Department of Education has long been a target for conservative efforts to weaken federal oversight. Ronald Reagan, during his 1980 presidential campaign, vowed to shut down the department, and in 2025, Donald Trump fulfilled this promise by significantly reducing its core functions through an executive order. This shift threatens to undermine critical services for college students nationwide, including the administration of federal funding for public institutions, student loan management, and grant oversight by government agencies.

Particularly vulnerable are marginalized student groups-such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of color-who are likely to bear the brunt of these changes. Yet, the full scope and timing of the impacts remain uncertain. To explore these issues, we consulted four leading voices in American education to understand how the Department’s dismantling could influence students now and in the years ahead.

Jesse Hagopian, based in Seattle, is an author, activist, and educator. Jennifer Berkshire is a seasoned journalist and cohost of the podcast “Hold You Heard,” with affiliations at Boston College and Yale University. Eleni Schirmer is an educator, writer, and organizer focusing on student debt and teachers’ unions. Paul Reville, a former Massachusetts Secretary of Education, is a professor at Harvard University specializing in educational policy and administration.

All responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

What’s Missing in Media Coverage of the Department’s Closure?

Jesse Hagopian:

The dominant narrative around this move is heavily ideological: it’s about dismantling a system from within, abandoning the most vulnerable students, privatizing education, and selling it to the highest bidder. Without a federal Department of Education, essential protections like Title IX, IDEA, civil rights enforcement, and funding for high-poverty schools are at serious risk. This isn’t about efficiency or local control; it’s a deliberate effort to erode the foundational pillars of equitable education.

Media outlets have largely overlooked the broader agenda behind the Trump administration’s education policies-aimed not merely at weakening public education but at dismantling it entirely, replacing it with a patchwork of private voucher schools and deregulated charter chains. Equally underreported is the Democratic Party’s role in ceding ground-preferring triangulation and austerity measures over robust defense of public institutions. This retreat has allowed far-right forces to dominate the narrative and set the stage for policies that, a decade ago, would have been unthinkable. Silence and compromise have contributed to this erosion of public education.

Eleni Schirmer:

The abolition of the Department of Education represents a direct assault on the fundamental right to learn. As outlined in the 2025 “Mission 2025” plan, the goal is to prepare women primarily for motherhood rather than higher education. This ideology fosters racist, sexist, and classist beliefs by reducing educational access. Eliminating federal student aid-our primary means for making college accessible-serves this vision by pushing more students into debt, which disproportionately impacts marginalized communities.

The Department’s role as a major lender-handling over $1.6 trillion in federal student loans-makes it one of the nation’s largest financial institutions. Yet, its operations are often inefficient, managed by private contractors with minimal oversight, leading to widespread issues like mismanaged payments, inaccurate records, and poor customer service. Privatization of these loans will only deepen these problems, enriching investors at the expense of borrowers and taxpayers. Mainstream media has largely ignored how private interests have already compromised the student debt system, exacerbating its inefficiencies and injustices.

Jennifer Berkshire:

Coverage often reflects confusion-questioning why the government is retreating from its educational responsibilities. But from a broader perspective, especially considering the rise of “escape science” that views inequality as genetically predetermined, it becomes clearer. When the goal shifts from fostering an equitable education system to one that sorts students by perceived innate ability, the entire purpose of public education is undermined. Conservative figures openly advocate for reducing the share of students who succeed in college, aiming to create a more stratified society. Journalists should be more assertive in questioning these motives and exposing their implications.

Paul Reville:

The Department’s original mission was to serve the most disadvantaged-low-income students, English language learners, and students with disabilities-ensuring their rights and supporting best practices for educators. Historically, Republicans championed local control, trusting communities to make decisions. Now, however, they are dictating policies from above-controlling what can be taught, who can attend, and how schools are run. This top-down approach threatens to eliminate diverse perspectives and impose a singular vision of education, with consequences for those who dissent or do not conform.

Hidden Long-Term Consequences

Jesse Hagopian:

The immediate effects of abolishing the Department won’t be fully apparent; they will unfold gradually as students grow up in systems lacking oversight, accountability, and protections. While the Department has historically fallen short on equity and civil rights enforcement, its absence will deepen existing disparities. Wealthier, predominantly white districts will be able to shield themselves through private funding, while underfunded schools serving marginalized communities will face further neglect, leading to a national landscape of increasing inequality.

Furthermore, the erosion of curriculum standards will accelerate, with states adopting sanitized textbooks, banning honest discussions about race, gender, and sexuality, and punishing teachers who foster critical thinking. This will result in the loss of historical memory and the normalization of injustice. Teacher recruitment and retention will suffer as educators face criminalization, censorship, and lack of support-particularly affecting teachers of color and those committed to truth-telling. Ultimately, the consolidation of miseducation will threaten the very idea of an informed, engaged citizenry, replacing critical learning with obedience and conformity.

Eleni Schirmer:

As the number of older Americans with student debt rises-currently the fastest-growing demographic-these policies will worsen the crisis. Without relief programs, many will face insurmountable debt, defaulting on loans, and experiencing wage garnishments, tax refund seizures, and social security offsets. The student loan portfolio, valued at over $1.6 trillion, is fragile; privatization could lead to a financial collapse similar to the 2008 mortgage crisis, with taxpayers footing the bill.

State-Level Shifts and Political Dynamics

Jennifer Berkshire:

Trump’s rhetoric about returning education authority to states masks a pattern: many Republican-led states have already enacted extensive voucher programs while simultaneously slashing taxes on corporations and the wealthy. These states, often underfunding public schools, are now shifting the burden onto families-many of whom already send their children to private schools-further entrenching inequality. This trend results in teacher layoffs, school closures, and diminished educational opportunities, creating a future of less prepared students.

Paul Reville:

The federal government’s refusal to disaggregate data hampers efforts to identify and address disparities among different communities. Without detailed information, it becomes harder to ensure equitable resource distribution or to recognize which groups need additional support. As federal oversight diminishes, tracking progress and holding systems accountable will become increasingly difficult, making it harder to fulfill the promise of an education system that serves all equally.

Communities Most at Risk and Why

Eleni Schirmer:

The elimination of the Department’s student loan programs will disproportionately impact low-income families, especially women, Black, and Hispanic households, who already face higher levels of debt. Without federal protections, these communities will be more vulnerable to predatory lending and financial hardship.

Jennifer Berkshire:

The civil rights division’s reduced enforcement means that complaints related to race, language, and special needs will go unaddressed. For families with children with disabilities, this signals a dangerous rollback of rights-federal protections for a “free and appropriate public education” may be ignored, leaving vulnerable students without essential support.

Paul Reville:

Communities with the greatest needs-those receiving Title I funds, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities-will suffer most as federal grants are redirected or diminished. This shift risks widening existing gaps and undermining efforts to promote inclusive, equitable education for all.

Strategies for Resistance and Change

Jesse Hagopian:

Overcoming this challenge requires more than just policy advocacy; it demands bold visions for what public education can become. Teacher resistance-such as refusing to comply with censorship, teaching banned books, and advocating for racial justice-serves as a frontline defense. These acts of defiance are vital for safeguarding intellectual freedom and human rights.

Eleni Schirmer:

It’s urgent to demand a bailout for working-class families, not investors. As Trump’s policies dismantle existing support systems, students and their families must push for comprehensive debt cancellation and free higher education. The current climate demands a vision rooted in democracy and reparative justice-an education system that prioritizes learning over profit. Building a “College for All” movement is more critical than ever.

Paul Reville:

Despite the bleak outlook, there remains a resilient core of educators and communities committed to justice. Their work-whether through advocacy, union activism, or grassroots organizing-keeps hope alive. The challenge is to sustain and expand these efforts, forging a broad coalition that can resist the rollback of public education and build a future rooted in equity and democracy.

Public Opinion and Political Realities

Jennifer Berkshire:

It’s important to remember that a significant majority of Americans oppose the dismantling of the Department of Education-polls show around 61% disapproval. Even among supporters of Trump’s broader policies, many oppose specific education cuts, such as vouchers or privatization. This widespread opposition offers a foundation for organizing resistance and mobilizing voters to defend public education in upcoming elections.

Conclusion:

While the current political landscape presents formidable challenges, it also opens opportunities for activism and coalition-building. Recognizing the widespread public support for strong, equitable public education can energize efforts to oppose destructive policies and advocate for a future where education remains a right, not a privilege.