The Shrinking Department: Understanding Layoffs and Changes at the Department of Education

The Department of Education (ED) has been the subject of significant change and controversy, particularly regarding staffing levels and its role in shaping education policy. This article examines the shifts within the ED, focusing on the reduction in force (RIF), interagency agreements (IAAs), and the broader implications for students, schools, and the future of federal involvement in education.

Staffing Reductions: A Closer Look

The Trump administration initiated a reduction in force (RIF) impacting nearly 50% of the Department’s workforce as part of the Department of Education’s final mission. The Education Department had about 4,100 employees when President Donald Trump took office. After the new layoffs, it would be down to fewer than 2,000. The cuts play into Trump's broader plan to shut down the Education Department and parcel its operations to other agencies.

These layoffs, which began in March, saw the dismissal of almost half of its 4,133 employees and the closure of most regional offices nationwide. The cuts affected a broad range of departmental offices, including the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), and the Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

The Department of Education’s workforce has been reduced by nearly 50 percent according to CAP analysis of the department’s reported headcount. About 58 percent of staff have received layoff notices or accepted resignation offers this year, but after multiple reductions in force and reinstatements, the total reduction by the Trump administration sits around 48 percent. In March, the Trump administration slashed the department’s workforce as a part of its “final mission” aiming to ultimately close the department’s doors. A federal judge has temporarily blocked the administration from moving forward with this reduction in force, noting that it is not following legal requirements and is unlawfully targeting staff and programs based on their perceived political alignment. However, the administration is expected to appeal the decision. If the Trump administration ultimately moves forward with this reduction, the offices that support the education of roughly 50 million K-12 students by enforcing civil rights laws and overseeing funding distribution for Title I schools, special education, rural schools, and more will be left with little to no staff. Ultimately, the Trump administration is doing this at the expense of children.

The administration stated that it would “continue to deliver on all statutory programs that fall under the agency’s purview,” such as formula funding, student loans, Pell Grants and competitive grantmaking.

Read also: Future of Alabama Education

Impact on Key Offices

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE): This office is the main entity overseeing federal pre-K-12 programs within the Department of Education, responsible for helping states and districts improve academic achievement and supporting equal access for all students. Last year, the OESE employed roughly 300 employees to oversee the implementation of the 88 programs it manages. Following the most recent actions of the Trump administration, though, all staff will be laid off aside from a few directors, raising concerns about how these programs will be managed effectively. With little to no staff, the office will be unable to properly enforce federal K-12 education law; accurately distribute funding intended to support schools and provide equal access to the most vulnerable students in a timely manner; review grant applications; and provide technical assistance to states and districts.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS): This office houses both the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), is integral to the Department of Education fulfilling its mandate to ensure educational and economic access and opportunities for individuals with disabilities. OSEP oversees the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the landmark special education law that was established 50 years ago to ensure protections and promote inclusive education for the 7.5 million students with disabilities. The office’s core functions include administering funding, providing technical assistance, overseeing special education data collection, reporting outcomes to Congress and the public, conducting state monitoring visits, and ensuring protections for students with disabilities. The loss of OSEP employees jeopardizes IDEA funding distribution and severely weakens the necessary oversight that tracks how these funds are used. It also creates a critical void in state monitoring and the effective legal interpretation of IDEA, a role OSEP has historically fulfilled by issuing guidance to state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) when they fail to meet the requirements of the law. Department of Health and Human Services, which notably does not hold expertise on the educational needs of children with disabilities. Meanwhile, the RSA ensures that individuals with disabilities have access to targeted services to prepare them for employment and independence. This includes vocational rehabilitation, which ensures the coordination of services such as career counseling, job coaching, and financial aid to high school students with disabilities to support their postsecondary transition.
Office for Civil Rights (OCR): A critical resource to families, the Office for Civil Rights enforces federal civil rights laws in schools across the country. The Department of Education is required by law to maintain the OCR to ensure equal access to education and uphold students’ civil rights. Every year, the office receives thousands of complaints of discrimination and opens investigations to help students and families find resolution. Prior to Trump’s inauguration, the OCR employed more than 600 people across 12 regional offices. And last year, the office fielded the highest number of civil rights complaints in the agency’s history, 22,687, with the majority falling under disability or sex-based discrimination. Now, it’s reported that staff in at least three of the five remaining regional offices received the recent notices of termination and only 120 people will be left to manage caseloads and ensure the protection of students’ civil rights-a more than 80 percent total reduction in staff from the start of this year according to CAP analysis. Caseloads were already unsustainable at roughly 42 cases per staff attorney, which then skyrocketed to 115 cases following the staff cuts in March and are now sure to dramatically increase again. Thousands of students report facing discrimination at school every year. The dramatic cuts to the OCR put students at higher risk and threaten equal access to education moving forward.

These staff reductions have raised concerns about the Department's ability to effectively enforce federal K-12 education law, accurately distribute funding, review grant applications, provide technical assistance, and protect students' civil rights.

Challenges to the Layoffs

The government's latest layoffs are being challenged in court by the American Federation of Government Employees and other national labor unions. In a court filing, the Trump administration said the executive branch has wide discretion to reduce the federal workforce. A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and the District of Columbia sued the administration following the layoffs, arguing that the dismissals were unconstitutional (on grounds of separation of powers as well as ultra vires action outside the scope of executive or agency authority) and also violated the Administrative Procedure Act. A second lawsuit has also been filed by two parents and a parent advocacy organization, arguing that the OCR will be unable to fulfill its statutory obligations because of the RIF. Any judicial actions arising from these lawsuits could potentially affect the reduction in force as well as this Department’s policy priorities.

Interagency Agreements: Shifting Responsibilities

The Trump Administration has begun its goal of eliminating the Department of Education (ED), with recent efforts to dissipate its authority through “interagency agreements” that disperse many of the department’s core functions across several federal agencies. Just this week, the Trump Administration announced plans to move more programs out of ED. These shifts will push out seasoned education experts, weaken oversight, and make it harder for students to receive the support they need. The department proceeded with two additional interagency agreements on Monday, transferring work on some of its programs to the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. The Education Department said these interagency agreements would “break up the federal bureaucracy,” and ensure more efficient delivery of programs and services. The Trump administration has moved the management of many programs to other federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It did so through a series of interagency agreements (IAAs). IAAs are contracts between agencies that define each agency’s roles and responsibilities in undertaking collaborative work. According to one analysis, the impacted funding makes up more than 40% of ED’s annual appropriations. The legality of these IAAs remains an open question. The impact of these moves-and potential future IAAs-is another open question. It will depend on how the changes are implemented and whether affected programs continue to operate as mandated by law. Critics have expressed concern about programs being administered by agencies that do not have sufficient expertise or familiarity with these programs.

Last fall, Education Secretary Linda McMahon told staff that more than a dozen employees had been transferred to the Labor Department. The Education Department is partnering with HHS on family engagement and school support programs. “HHS brings decades of frontline experience responding to crises and disasters, and we are putting that expertise directly into our schools,” HHS Secretary Robert F. These interagency agreements will move billions of dollars in grant programs to other agencies. The Labor Department, in particular, will oversee federal funding that goes to K-12 schools, including grants for schools serving low-income communities.

Concerns Regarding IDEA and Civil Rights

These efforts pose a particular risk to the rights of students with disabilities. Over the past year, the Trump Administration has discontinued several grants within IDEA, including for state-level initiatives that train teachers of students with disabilities and that help schools and educators gain the resources and training to instruct students with visual and hearing impairments, and for nonprofit organizations that supply resources and legal support to parents of students with disabilities from marginalized groups, including students of color and families that speak languages other than English. At the end of last year, the Administration unveiled new interagency agreements (IAAs) with the Departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services, and State that would transfer major responsibilities out of the Department of Education. This move would severely undermine the rights of students with disabilities.

Read also: IEP Process Explained

Students with disabilities are general education students first, and moving the program out of ED risks blurring the focus on educational outcomes and opportunities. Civil Rights: IDEA is not just a funding law; it is a civil rights law. IDEA requires stringent monitoring and oversight, and it is essential that its guardians protect and strengthen its services. The Department of Education prioritizes the needs of students with disabilities, in large part because IDEA is the second-largest federal funding program for K-12 public schools. If the program were moved to HHS, officials there would likely consider it an afterthought. HHS has many large programs to administer, such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Recent large-scale layoffs at ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) already has hampered its ability to enforce federal civil rights protections for students across the country. For example, a recent GAO report showed that between March and September 2025, about 90% of discrimination cases handled by OCR were resolved by simply dismissing the complaint. Resolving cases without actual review puts the civil rights of the nation’s students at severe risk and could prompt significant challenges for students with disabilities, such as a lack of accommodations they are legally entitled to, harassment in educational environments, and disproportionate disciplinary measures.

Funding and Accountability

IDEA has protected the rights of students with disabilities for 50 years. IDEA has successfully ensured that students with disabilities are entitled to a quality education experience, even though Congress has never provided the promised level of funding and state requirements often go unmet. When IDEA was enacted in 1975, Congress committed to funding 40% of the average per pupil cost for special education, but the federal share is now less than 12%. Despite this shortcoming, high school graduation rates for students with disabilities have improved drastically since the implementation of IDEA. In the 1995-96 school year, only 27.2% of students with disabilities graduated with a high school diploma. For the 2021-22 school year, that number was at 73.6%. The Department of Education plays a crucial role in tracking states’ progress in meeting IDEA’s requirements, which could be at risk if the program moves to HHS. While the administration claims that moves to dismantle the department would lessen bureaucracy, it would likely increase it. It would create a breadth of challenges for local and state education agencies, who would likely have to navigate new payment systems. This could create funding delays and issues.

For example, in 2025, rural school leaders received funding two months late after the administration transferred programs outside of the department. In moving K-12 programs to the Department of Labor (DOL), the DOL grant system didn’t recognize state education agencies’ bank accounts. IDEA is a critical funding and civil rights law that protects the rights of students with disabilities and ensures they receive the education they are legally entitled to. Keeping IDEA at the Department of Education is crucial for the rights of students.

The Broader Political Context

The Trump administration seeks to close the Education Department, but it can’t do that without approval from Congress. ED and its core functions were defined by the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979. To shut down the Department or terminate those functions would require another act of Congress. Democrats staunchly oppose the elimination of ED, and some Republicans have joined them.

President Trump and his administration talk frequently about the need to return education to the states. State and local policymakers across the political spectrum have, for years, objected to some ways the federal government engages in education. This includes concerns about burdensome requirementsfor federal programs, “unfunded mandates” (e.g., for IDEA), and regulatory whiplash in the enforcement of civil rights laws.

ED's Role in Civil Rights Enforcement

Meanwhile, ED has arguably exerted considerably more control over matters such as K-12 curriculum and school policies since Trump took office. Much of this comes through its different and aggressive approach to civil rights enforcement. ED issued a DCL and FAQ (to accompany another executive order) that articulate a new interpretation of civil rights laws and regulations. It then sent a letter to states demanding that they certify compliance with the guidance in the DCL, including the elimination of all DEI programs, within 10 days. The administration has delayed or threatened to withhold federal funding over alleged noncompliance.

Funding Withholds and Cancellations

The Trump administration has delayed or withheld significant amounts of federal funding from schools and colleges-actions that were virtually unheard of before 2025. It has impounded previously appropriated funds, canceled millions of dollars in grants for alleged “waste, fraud, and abuse,” and withheld funding for supposed civil rights violations. Some of these actions have targeted specific states or institutions that refused to comply with the administration’s directives, while others have applied more indiscriminately to entire categories of grants or funding streams. It remains the case that ED’s authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding is narrow and must follow the procedures established in implementing regulations. Yet, the Trump administration has looked for ways-legal or not-to put financial pressure on states, schools, and colleges. For example, it cancelled $1 billion in school mental health grants, claiming that the grant program no longer aligned with the administration’s priorities. During the height of DOGE activity in early 2025, the federal government canceled many education contracts. The impact was most acutely felt in the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the Department’s education research arm. There, DOGE terminated about $900 million in research contracts, seemingly overnight.

Cancel federal funding (or threaten to do so) for alleged civil rights violations. The administration has used its authority to withhold federal funding from institutions that it sees as misaligned with this administration’s interpretation of civil rights law (over issues such as transgender rights and antisemitism). Colleges and universities have been the primary targets of this type of enforcement, but some K-12 districts and states have also had funding withheld unexpectedly (e.g., New York City Department of Education, Chicago Public Schools, and Fairfax County Public Schools).

Impact on Colleges and Universities

The administration has delayed or withheld funds from institutions to force compliance with their directives related to DEI, LGBTQ+ rights, and antisemitism. Through OCR and the Federal Taskforce to Combat Anti-Semitism, the administration has accused colleges of civil rights violations and withheld federal research funding. Courts have blocked many of these actions, and some universities have entered voluntarysettlements and changed their policies to restore funds. The administration asked nine colleges to sign onto a Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Educationthat threatened the future of “federal benefits” (including student loans, student visa approvals, and tax benefits) for institutions that do not adopt the administration’s “models and values.” The prescribed actions include freezing tuition, limiting international undergraduate enrollment, banning the consideration of most student characteristics in admissions (including race, sex, gender, and nationality), and advancing institutional neutrality. Widespread grant and contract cancelations by DOGE also affected university operations and financial stability. In response, ongoing research was suspended, positions were cut, and PhD admissions were paused.

Congressional Response

Congress has not shown much interest in eliminating ED or reducing funding for existing education programs. On the appropriations side, Congress rejected funding cuts proposed by the Trump administration, funding most programs at flat levels relative to FY2025. For example, while the administration wanted to cut the federal Pell grant for low-income students by 23%, the FY26 budget maintained last year’s grant levels. Congress also allocated $790 million to IES (the administration requested $261 million), $140 million to OCR (the administration requested $91 million), and $1.588 billion for Federal TRIO and GEAR UP college success programs (the administration asked to eliminate these programs entirely). The largest legislative effort in 2025 was the passage of OBBBA, which included a controversial new tax-credit scholarship program and significant changes to higher education policy. Congress clearly envisioned a well-staffed Department of Education to implement changes to student loan borrowing and repayment, as well as the new Workforce Pell funding stream that requires significant oversight on eligible programs. ED has convened several negotiated rulemaking committees to advance regulations needed to implement these policies.

Challenges for Student Loan Borrowers

Student loan borrowers continue to face a chaotic and confusing loan repayment system. Recent cuts to ED staffing have exacerbated this problem, making it difficult to help borrowers understand their repayment options and enroll in a suitable plan. It also remains to be seen whether ED will be able to effectively manage the substantial overhaul of the student loan program included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). During the Biden administration, ED used the regulatory process to introduce a more generous income-driven repayment (IDR) plan known as SAVE. The plan was challenged in court after nearly 8 million borrowers had already enrolled. Those borrowers have been placed into forbearance while the case is litigated. In the meantime, many Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) eligible borrowers currently on SAVE cannot make qualifying payments. This August, ED started charging interest on those loans, urging borrowers to enroll in other repayment plans and resume payments. In a lawsuit, the American Federation of Teachers objected to the administration’s handling of IDR and PSLF. In a settlement, ED agreed to open additional IDR plans to new enrollment, resume processing IDR forgiveness applications, and process PSLF waiver applications. However, progress has been slow. Transitioning borrowers to new plans once SAVE is eliminated will take time and staff support.

Federal Student Aid (FSA), the agency that manages the student loan program, has long been considered understaffed to handle the loan program. Its recent cuts raise questions about ED’s ability to execute the transition effectively. Indeed, there is reason for concern about FSA’s capacity. The Department has twice announced plans to restart involuntary collections on defaulted loans but subsequently backed off. Most recently, ED indicated they wanted to give borrowers in default more time to rehabilitate their loans or enroll in new options that will become available as a result of OBBBA before withholding tax refunds.

In October, the Department adopted a rule amending the definition of “qualifying employer” for PSLF to exclude organizations that, according to the Secretary, are engaged in “substantial illegal activities.” These provisions appear targeted at governments’ and non-profit organizations’ actions related to immigration, abortion care, gender-affirming care, or DEI programs.1 The rule, which is not scheduled to go into effect until July 2026, is the subject of multiple lawsuits, so it remains to be seen if any borrowers will be denied PSLF credit under this policy.

tags: #dept #of #education #layoffs #information