“We’re going to move education into the states,” declared President Donald Trump after announcing plans to dissolve the U.S. Department of Education. Following his inauguration, the department’s workforce has been slashed — of 4,133 employees, only half remain, either as a result of voluntary leave or forced layoffs by the federal government.
Downsizing is just the first step toward a complete shutdown of the department. The justification? Reducing federal spending by shifting the responsibility for education onto the states. However, eliminating the Department of Education will not balance the federal budget since the majority of funding for public schools already comes from state and local governments. The Department’s budget is relatively small compared to federal spending in other areas. For example, in the fiscal year 2025, of the $1.6 trillion budget, only 2 percent is allocated to the Department of Education. In contrast, the Department of Health and Human Services receives 26 percent, the Social Security Administration gets 22 percent, and the Department of the Treasury accounts for 20 percent.
While the national deficit reached $1.8 trillion in 2024, cutting down on the Department of Education’s budget would not significantly reduce overall spending. So what is the real motive behind gutting the agency?
While most school funding comes from the state and local governments, 47.5 and 44.9 percent respectively, the federal government (which contributes around 7.6 percent of the funding) still plays an important role. Aside from providing financial support, the government enforces education standards and supports low-income and special education programs for schools, essential for vulnerable students. So while eliminating the department would not shut down public schools, it would widen inequality gaps. The loss of federal support would mean that lower-level authorities would have to either raise taxes or cut school budgets to compensate for missing funds. Faculty will lose their jobs, and disadvantaged students will be left behind. Rather than eliminating education costs, shutting down the department would shift the financial burden onto the states, all the while deepening disparities between wealthy and underfunded districts.
Critical programs such as Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act protect the rights of low-income students and students with disabilities to education and employment. They ensure equal access to opportunities by providing crucial resources that help students in pursuing their goals and leading more independent lives. Without these programs, students’ needs won’t be met, leading to inconsistencies in civil rights enforcement which would leave marginalized students vulnerable to discriminatory practices.
The Trump administration’s possibly symbolic cut of the Department of Education will not solve structural problems like the federal budget deficit. Those in favor of limited government interference may champion the plan, but it will certainly not lead to significant reductions in government spending.
If this administration is serious about minimizing the deficit, it should focus on larger spending areas instead of targeting a department that accounts for only 2 percent of the discretionary budget. For example, policymakers can explore welfare and assistance reforms to address fraud and improve work requirements. The government can also invest in infrastructure by developing new roads, bridges, and public transportation to improve economic productivity, which would generate tax revenue and help ensure long-term fiscal impact and sustainability. If the goal is to reduce the budget, it is crucial that the federal government focus on major spending areas instead of programs with low monetary costs but high social impacts — like our invaluable Department of Education.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
