Why Breaking Up the Education Department Sparks Alarm Among Students and Officials
In late 2025, the U.S. Department of Education made a public statement about their intention to hand over the administration of six main programs to other federal departments. These changes are one of the significant actions taken by the Trump administration and Secretary Linda McMahon aimed at reducing the size of the agency and returning control over education to states and local communities.
Those on the side of the motion assert that by doing so the layer of bureaucracy could be cut down and states will be given the freedom to decide how to use their funds. However, quite a number of legislators, student leaders, educators, and the civil-rights movement vehemently oppose this view. According to their statements, the removal of these programs will result in communities lacking the necessary services, decrease the level of supervision, and make it difficult for vulnerable children, especially those coming from poverty, having a disability, or being multilingual, to get the support to which they are entitled.
Opponents of the strategy caution that the agencies that will be taking over the programs are not equipped with the necessary knowledge, manpower, and facilities to do it appropriately. A student leader at Georgetown University labeled the action as “unnecessarily cruel,” emphasizing that it focuses on the most helpless children.
The programs that are being moved consist of the provision of educational resources in areas with insufficient funding, children without homes, children of migrant workers, afterschool initiatives, and other support services. The administration states that the reorganisation is in line with the changes in education coming under the management of workforce, state, and local authorities as well as agencies like the U.S. Department of Labor.
Although McMahon reassures that statutory obligations and supervision will be kept intact, many still doubt whether dismantled departments will be able to provide the same quality of service.
This, in fact, creates doubt as to what will happen to families and schools throughout the nation. The absence of a federal department dedicated to education may bring about interruptions in the provision of support services to students. The deprived and disadvantaged communities may be that which are most affected without being aware of it. And for those dependent on federal monitoring for the observance of their rights, accessibility, provision of funds or aid, the change could mean that they are left unprotected.