The Evolution and Impact of Trump's Education Policies

The Trump administration's approach to education was marked by significant shifts in policy and priorities. This article examines the key aspects of these changes, including the restructuring of the Department of Education (ED), the focus on state and local control, and the controversies surrounding civil rights enforcement and funding.

Restructuring the Department of Education

One of the Trump administration's most ambitious goals was to reshape the Department of Education. President Trump appointed Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, tasking her with "facilitating the closure" of the department. While a complete shutdown would require congressional approval, the administration pursued strategies to shrink ED's influence and redistribute its responsibilities.

Staffing Reductions and Interagency Agreements

By 2025, ED's workforce had been reduced by almost half compared to when Trump took office, with approximately 1,700 employees departing. The administration also shifted the management of numerous programs to other federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through interagency agreements (IAAs). These agreements defined each agency's roles and responsibilities in collaborative work.

According to one analysis, the funding impacted by these IAAs constituted over 40% of ED's annual appropriations. Concerns were raised about the legality of these agreements and their potential impact on the affected programs, particularly whether the administering agencies possessed sufficient expertise or familiarity with them. For example, programs such as Full-Service Community Schools, Promise Neighborhoods, Project SERV, and Ready to Learn grants were transferred to HHS.

Shifting Responsibilities and Concerns

While IAAs are not uncommon in federal program management, the scale and scope of the shifts under the Trump administration raised questions. Critics worried that these moves could lead to inefficiencies, lack of oversight, and a potential for "waste, fraud, and abuse," as the agency was asking an "overworked skeleton crew to manage a risky transfer to an agency with no educational expertise."

Read also: Impact of Trump on Student Debt

Returning Education to the States

President Trump and his administration frequently emphasized the need to return education to the states. This aligned with a broader Republican policy goal of reducing federal oversight and empowering state and local governments in educational matters.

Seeking Deference and Flexibility

State and local policymakers had long expressed concerns about the federal government's involvement in education, citing burdensome requirements, unfunded mandates (such as those related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act - IDEA), and regulatory inconsistencies in civil rights enforcement.

A letter from state school officers in Republican-led states illustrated a desire for greater deference to state leaders in the use of federal funding, expanded use of ED's waiver authority, and changes in how ED approached "Dear Colleague Letters" (DCLs) and other guidance. The letter also advocated for amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to consolidate funding programs and provide states with more flexibility.

Increased Federal Control Through Civil Rights Enforcement

Despite the rhetoric of returning education to the states, the Trump administration arguably exerted more control over K-12 curriculum and school policies through its approach to civil rights enforcement. ED issued a DCL and FAQ that articulated a new interpretation of civil rights laws and regulations. It then demanded that states certify compliance with the guidance in the DCL, including the elimination of all DEI programs, within 10 days. The administration delayed or threatened to withhold federal funding for alleged noncompliance.

Funding Controversies and Withholdings

The Trump administration adopted a more aggressive stance on federal funding, delaying or withholding significant amounts from schools and colleges. This included impounding previously appropriated funds, canceling grants for alleged "waste, fraud, and abuse," and withholding funding for supposed civil rights violations.

Read also: The Impact on Education

Financial Pressure and Targeted Actions

These actions often targeted specific states or institutions that resisted compliance with the administration's directives, while others applied more broadly to entire categories of grants or funding streams. The administration canceled existing federal grants and contracts that conflicted with its agenda, such as its anti-DEI stance.

For instance, $1 billion in school mental health grants were canceled, purportedly because the program no longer aligned with the administration's priorities. The impact was acutely felt at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), where approximately $900 million in research contracts were terminated seemingly overnight.

Legal Challenges and Authority

While ED's authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding is limited and subject to established procedures, the Trump administration sought ways to exert financial pressure on states, schools, and colleges, regardless of the legal implications.

Impact on Colleges and Universities

The Trump administration's policies created a turbulent and uncertain environment for colleges and universities. Funding cuts and withholdings, new visa policies, and pressure on issues such as DEI and free speech all had significant effects.

Funding Cuts and Compliance Demands

The administration delayed or withheld funds from institutions to force compliance with its directives related to DEI, LGBTQ+ rights, and antisemitism. Colleges were accused of civil rights violations and had federal research funding withheld through OCR and the Federal Taskforce to Combat Anti-Semitism.

Some universities entered voluntary settlements and changed their policies to restore funds, while others, like Harvard University, resisted and filed lawsuits, arguing that the administration's demands were an illegal overreach of government authority.

Compact for Academic Excellence

The administration asked nine colleges to sign onto a Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education that threatened the future of "federal benefits" for institutions that did not adopt the administration's "models and values." The prescribed actions included freezing tuition, limiting international undergraduate enrollment, banning the consideration of most student characteristics in admissions, and advancing institutional neutrality.

Office for Civil Rights (OCR)

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) experienced significant changes under the Trump administration. While staffing cuts initially hampered its ability to investigate and resolve civil rights complaints, the administration also used OCR as a tool to enforce its positions on culture-war issues. The administration demonstrated a willingness to withhold federal funding from institutions without conducting substantive investigations or following required procedures.

Congressional Response and Legislative Efforts

Despite the Trump administration's efforts, Congress largely rejected its proposed cuts to education funding and envisioned a robust Department of Education.

Rejecting Proposed Cuts

The recently passed FY2026 appropriations bill rejected most of the administration's proposed cuts, funding most programs at flat levels relative to FY2025. For example, while the administration sought to cut the federal Pell grant for low-income students by 23%, the FY26 budget maintained the previous year's grant levels.

Congress also allocated $790 million to IES (compared to the administration's request of $261 million), $140 million to OCR (compared to the administration's request of $91 million), and $1.588 billion for Federal TRIO and GEAR UP college success programs (which the administration wanted to eliminate entirely).

One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)

The largest legislative effort in 2025 was the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which included a new tax-credit scholarship program and significant changes to higher education policy. Congress envisioned a well-staffed Department of Education to implement these changes, particularly those related to student loan borrowing and repayment.

Student Loan Repayment System

Student loan borrowers faced a chaotic and confusing repayment system during the Trump administration. Cuts to ED staffing exacerbated this problem, making it difficult to assist borrowers in understanding their repayment options and enrolling in suitable plans.

Income-Driven Repayment (IDR) Plans

During the Biden administration, ED introduced a more generous income-driven repayment (IDR) plan known as SAVE. However, the plan was challenged in court, leading to borrowers being placed into forbearance while the case was litigated. The American Federation of Teachers filed a lawsuit objecting to the administration's handling of IDR and PSLF, resulting in a settlement that required ED to open additional IDR plans and resume processing forgiveness applications.

Federal Student Aid (FSA) Capacity

Concerns remained about FSA's capacity to effectively manage the substantial overhaul of the student loan program included in OBBBA. The Department twice announced plans to restart involuntary collections on defaulted loans but subsequently backed off.

Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)

In October 2025, the Department adopted a rule amending the definition of "qualifying employer" for PSLF, potentially denying credit to borrowers working for organizations engaged in activities related to immigration, abortion care, gender-affirming care, or DEI programs. This rule, which is subject to multiple lawsuits, is not scheduled to go into effect until July 2026.

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Initiatives

The Trump administration took a firm stance against DEI programs, viewing them as discriminatory and divisive. This stance had significant implications for schools, colleges, and universities.

Restrictions and Prohibitions

The administration demanded that states receiving money for sex education under the Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) remove all references to gender identity, transgender, and non-binary people from the curriculum. By October 2025, at least eleven states had complied, while others filed lawsuits challenging the demand.

Impact on Academic Freedom

The administration's actions were criticized for infringing on academic freedom and creating a chilling effect on campus discourse. Concerns were raised that the government was attempting to exert undue control over academic decision-making.

Impact on Science and Research

The Trump administration's science policy resulted in the cutting or freezing of large amounts of funding used for research on topics such as climate change, vaccines, LGBTQ topics, and COVID-19. This had a detrimental effect on scientific progress and innovation.

Reactions and Resistance

The Trump administration's education policies faced widespread criticism and resistance from educators, civil rights groups, and Democratic politicians.

Legal Challenges

Numerous lawsuits were filed challenging the administration's actions, particularly those related to funding cuts, civil rights enforcement, and student loan programs.

Concerns About Brain Drain

Researchers, scientists, and post-docs reportedly considered leaving or were leaving the United States in response to Trump's policies.

Criticism from CEOs

Hundreds of American CEOs criticized Trump's attacks on universities through an open letter, arguing that funding cuts and student visa restrictions impacted America's economic competitiveness.

tags: #trump #department #of #education #policy