Implications of Deregulating Education

James Pan • January 15, 2025

Education policy is becoming an increasingly greater concern for both American citizens and government officials. With his inauguration, Donald Trump and his constituents have a sweeping vision for education reform focused on reducing the purview of the federal government and eliminating “left-wing indoctrination” from school curriculums (NPR). Trump’s first proposed change is abolishing the Department of Education, a cabinet-level federal department responsible for issuing student loans, preventing discrimination via civil rights enforcement, and collecting data on trends in American schools (Department of Education). Authority on these matters would be sent back to the states, and programs like Federal Student Aid (FSA) would be under the authority of another federal agency. Trump has repeatedly pledged to abolish the Department of Education in the past, claiming that the department is responsible for “indoctrinating young people with inappropriate racial, sexual and political material.” Despite appeals toward reducing bureaucratic hurdles or fighting “wokeness” in the nation’s schools, Trump’s proposal remains deeply flawed. Closing the Department of Education would hurt the nation’s most vulnerable students by hampering the distribution of student loans and disrupting civil rights enforcement that protects students from marginalized backgrounds (Chalkbeat).

“[Organizations] like the Department of Education are very important to [many] people,” freshman Adam Khaja said. “[Federal] involvement in education is [vital] to maintain a [uniform quality] of education. States and [other agencies] will probably be worse than the Department of Education since they are not as [specialized] and may have fewer resources.”

As more Americans attend college, the number of people who rely on student loans has made financial aid a foremost policy concern. These loans are important for many Americans, especially those from low and middle-income backgrounds, to finance the increasing costs of post-secondary education (Council of Economic Advisors). According to an analysis of 2023 Federal Reserve data, a quarter of U.S. adults aged between 18 and 39 have student loan debt from their education (Pew Research Center). Establishing policies on and distributing federal financial aid is the foremost objective of the agency, which is responsible for managing a $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio (The Washington Post). The Department of Education gives out roughly $100 billion in student loans alongside an additional $30 billion in Pell Grants annually. Trump’s proposal would shift authority over student loans to the Department of the Treasury, which is responsible for broader fiscal policy (Inside Higher Ed).

According to an op-ed published in conservative news outlet The74, the shift would aim at rectifying the Department of Education’s mismanagement of the ballooning FSA program, with the Treasury being comparatively better suited to managing the size and complexity of FSA. However, a jurisdictional shift of a program as large as FSA to an entirely distinct agency would be met with significant operational hurdles; it remains unclear how the Treasury would enforce laws related to financial aid, and what would happen to the existing 1,500 employees of FSA. Concerns of whether they would still be employed at the Treasury or what tasks they would carry out reveal salient issues with the proposal’s implementation. These questions have invited speculation regarding the potential disruption that the shift may cause. Past disruptions in FSA have had severe implications on students: during the 2024-25 FAFSA rollout, technical flaws induced delays and spurred vagueness regarding eligibility for aid, which barred many students from enrolling in college (Inside Higher Education). The organizational shifts resulting from the closing of the Department of Education would present unprecedented disruption significantly greater than those seen in the past, leaving millions of students with roadblocks in their ability to obtain access to secondary education.

“Even a short-term [disruption] could affect what college I decide to go to,” sophomore Aadi Bhagat said. “Questions about [tuition] would likely hinder my [access] to [quality] education because it could mean I [am forced] to go to a cheaper, but [lower-quality] school. My sister has received student loans, and financial support is important to me [too].”

The Department of Education also oversees the enforcement of civil rights laws in schools, investigating discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation and other factors. The Office of Civil Rights allows students, school staff and parents to file a complaint if a school has engaged in discriminatory practice. Under Democratic administrations, the Department has often been perceived as representative of progressive approaches to education. Naturally, this has resulted in harsh opposition from conservatives who argue the Department of Education’s promotion of various forms of equity represents perverse “political meddling” from progressives attempting to “indoctrinate” students (The Washington Post). Trump’s website pledges to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the Department of Education” (donaldjtrump.com). The Department of Education has come under fire in the past few months for revisions expanding and clarifying protections for LGBTQ+ students to Title IX, a law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. Closing the Department would hamper attempts to create safer educational environments for individuals who may otherwise be subject to discrimination, which would have a deeply harmful impact on a number of marginalized communities, such as LGBTQ+ students. Essentially, enforcement against discrimination in federally-funded schools would no longer be required, permitting discrimination without a basis for recourse.

“Affirming that a [diverse] group of people should be present in [academic] spaces is [imperative], regardless of their race, gender or their [beliefs],” sophomore Tim Liu said. “This should not be a partisan issue. Diverse [environments] are important to learning about [issues] that are often undercovered.”

President Donald Trump and his conservative base have repeatedly pledged to close the Department of Education, a proposal that would have a deleterious effect on American education. With the future of diverse and equitable access to education at stake, it is vital that students educate themselves on how the education system operates, facilitate discussions with teachers and classmates, attend school board meetings and communicate with their local representatives. Creating change may seem difficult for young people, but it remains an undeniably important task when the future is at stake.

On Feb. 11th, the recently created Department of Government Efficiency announced on X, formerly Twitter, that it would be cancelling $881 million worth of Department of Education contracts, including $101 million worth of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives (Newsweek). President Trump’s Education Secretary nominee, Linda McMahon was confirmed on March 3rd (CBS News).