Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education: What Education Leaders Should Be Watching in 2025
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is targeted for elimination. While this may not be the first time in recent decades that some politicians have expressed skepticism about the agency’s necessity, most educators, education advocates, education technology innovators still probably find it hard to imagine that today the Trump administration is actually going through with it, with its pledge to eliminate the ED.
Why This Matters
For education leaders and innovators who are in education or partner with schools, efforts to dismantle the agency raise real questions about the stability of federal programs, the future of grantmaking, regulatory oversight, and how institutions should prepare for a period of change.
For example, a new line up of postsecondary education grant prioritie were released alongside the grant NOFOs providing prospective applicants with no grant forecasting and only about two weeks to develop and submit proposals. Is this just short-term turbulence, or a sign of things to come?...
How will “closing” the agency actually look like and how fast is the Trump administration moving to fulfill this pledge?
What will happen to DE appropriations, funding, and grants?
This post offers an overview of what is happening, what is being proposed, and what education leaders may want to monitor in the months ahead.
Background: Trump’s Executive Order to Eliminate the U.S. Department of Education
With a sweeping executive order in March 2025 the White House initiated one of the most sweeping federal restructuring efforts in decades: a directive to begin closing the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and shifting many of its core functions to other federal agencies and the states.
On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the executive order “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The order instructs the Secretary of Education to:
“take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education”
transfer responsibilities “to the States, local communities, or other federal agencies”
“ensure the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits” during the transition
The rationale, as described in a White House statement quoted in The 74’s reporting, emphasizes declining academic outcomes and a belief that the federal education system has become ineffective:
Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them. Today, American reading and math scores are near historical lows. This year’s National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that 70 percent of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72 percent were below proficient in math. The Federal education bureaucracy is not working.
This frames the administration’s broader strategy: reduce federal oversight, expand state authority, and reassign ED’s major functions rather than eliminate them outright as a strategy, ostensibly, to get school outcomes back on track.
Understanding the Department of Education’s Core Divisions and Funding Streams
Two questions will largely determine the impact of eliminating the Department of Education:
What funding flows through the ED today?
Will this funding cease, or simply be administered through other agencies?
Let’s start with the first question. Here’s a brief overview of ED’s core functions and funding streams:
1. K–12 Learning and Elementary & Secondary Education
This includes:
Title I (supports low-income schools)
Title II (educator development, instructional improvement)
Title III (English learners)
Assessment, accountability, and academic improvement programs
Historically, this division manages tens of billions in federal funds annually, most of it distributed to states through formula grants.
2. Postsecondary / Higher Education
Programs include:
Title III & V (institutional capacity-building)
TRIO and GEAR UP
Grants focused on innovation, minority-serving institutions, and improvement of postsecondary education
Federal student aid policy oversight (although major aid programs are technically housed under Federal Student Aid, which could be repositioned independently)
For higher ed institutions, this division is central to grantmaking, compliance, and regulatory guidance.
3. Special Education
Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ED supports:
State formula grants under IDEA Part B
Early intervention (Part C)
Technical assistance and research on special education practices
IDEA funding is one of the largest and most protected K–12 funding streams, and any shifts in agency oversight matter to both school districts and higher education programs preparing special educators.
4. Tribal Education
Federal responsibilities relating to Native American education include:
Support for Tribal Colleges and Universities
Coordination with the Bureau of Indian Education (within the Interior Department)
Targeted grant programs for Native-serving institutions
5. Civil Rights and Enforcement
The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) oversees:
Title IX
Protections for students with disabilities
Anti-discrimination investigations
Civil rights compliance for institutions receiving federal funds
Civil rights oversight is closely tied to federal requirements for institutions receiving federal funds. Any reorganization naturally raises questions about how enforcement will be structured.
How the Department Is Actually Being Dismantled
Now for the second question we asked: Will this funding cease, or simply be administered through other agencies?
Although “closing the department” sounds like a single action, what is unfolding is a multi-phase administrative process, largely built around inter-agency transfers, resource reallocation, and reassigning statutory responsibilities.
The Trump administration has signaled that most of the DE functions and appropriations will be transferred to other agencies, such as the Department of Labor (DOL) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). and a significant amount of federal education funding currently appropriated in alignment with specific DE research into “best practices,” etc., will instead be dispersed to states in the form of block grant funding.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) today announced six new interagency agreements (IAAs) with four agencies to break up the federal education bureaucracy, ensure efficient delivery of funded programs, activities, and move closer to fulfilling the President’s promise to return education to the states… These new partnerships with the Departments of Labor (DOL), Interior (DOI), Health and Human Services (HHS), and State mark a major step toward improving the management of select ED programs by leveraging partner agencies’ administrative expertise and experience working with relevant stakeholders.
— Press Release, US Department of Education, 18 November, 2025
A. Block Grant Funding
The administration has also signaled interest in re-channeling some federal education dollars into state-level block grants. This approach typically emerges when federal leadership expresses a preference for shifting authority to states and reducing federal program administration.
Block grants provide states (and sometimes local jurisdictions) with broader discretion over how to allocate funds based on their identified priorities and needs, rather than tying dollars to federal program rules or evidence-based practices identified by the Department of Education.
Potential Benefits and Risks of Block Grant Funding
Block grants can offer both advantages and downsides, and views of the pros and cons can depend on which side of which political divide stakeholders see themselves on.
That said, here are some potential ways stakeholders may view the advantages:
Local flexibility: Funding can be directed toward urgent or emerging needs not easily addressed by federally prescribed programs.
Streamlined administration: Fewer federal compliance requirements may reduce administrative burdens.
Potential for innovation: States with strong data systems, inclusive planning processes, and well-established improvement strategies may use this flexibility to design context-specific, high-impact interventions.
Yet block grants also carry well-recognized risks in the education sector:
Reduced oversight: With fewer federal guardrails, there is less assurance that funds are used for evidence-based, equitable, or student-centered priorities.
Inequitable decision-making: In states or districts without strong stakeholder engagement or transparent processes, discretionary funds may not reach the communities of greatest need.
Greater vulnerability to political shifts: Broad flexibility can open the door to rapid policy swings due to changes in state leadership.
Accountability challenges: Larger, more flexible funding blocks make it easy for states to give in to top-down, state-level decision making, and can make it harder to monitor outcomes, assess impact, and evaluate whether funds are improving student learning.
Block grants are neither inherently good nor inherently problematic, but some people will generally favor them and others be inclined to oppose them. Their impact depends almost entirely on state leadership, local governance capacity, transparency, and the quality of decision-making processes already in place. In short: greater flexibility can empower states that have strong internal systems — and strain those that do not.
B. Inter-Agency Transfers Already Underway
(Updated based on the December 2025 U.S. Department of Education press release announcing six new agency partnerships.)
The reorganization is no longer theoretical. In December 2025, the U.S. Department of Education announced six major inter-agency partnerships intended to “break up the federal education bureaucracy” and transition core ED functions to other Cabinet agencies. These partnerships signal where ED programs—and their associated funding streams—are expected to land as the Department winds down.
Each partnership includes a publicly released fact sheet, outlining which programs are being transferred and how responsibilities will be shared during the transition.
1. Department of Labor (DOL) Partnership
Focus: K–12 and Postsecondary programs with strong ties to workforce readiness, career pathways, and economic mobility.
According to the ED–DOL fact sheet, the Department of Labor will begin assuming operational responsibility for many of ED’s largest programs—including significant components of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of Postsecondary Education—positioning DOL as the new administrative home for approximately $28 billion in education-related grants and formula programs.
Fact Sheet:https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/DOL-Partnership-FactSheet-Declassified.pdf
2. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Partnership
Focus: Early childhood programs and child care access, family supports, school-based health and mental health programs, and campus-based childcare, and foreign medical accreditation partnership.
This partnership includes the transfer of specific ED programs that align with HHS’s existing expertise in child development, health services, and family supports. Early childhood grants and certain student-support programs will now be jointly managed or transitioned to HHS.
Fact Sheets:
https://www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/2025-12/HHS-Partnership-FactSheet-Declassified%20%281%29.pdf
3. State Department Partnership
ED and State are establishing the International Education and Foreign Language Studies Partnership to improve efficiencies for programs administered under the Fulbright-Hays grant. The partnership provides an opportunity to streamline international education program funding and data collection measures, consolidate program management, and advance national security interests.
Fact Sheet:
4. Department of the Interior (DOI) Partnership
Focus: Tribal education, partnerships with Tribal Colleges and Universities, and programs that intersect with the Bureau of Indian Education.
This transfer aligns ED’s Tribal education responsibilities with DOI’s long-standing role in Indigenous education and community development.
These transfers are occurring through inter-agency agreements designed to relocate operational responsibilities even before Congress formally acts on any legislative dissolution.
A big question will be how effectively the designated K12 and Postsecondary grant funding flows and what priorities it gets directed too.
For example, just last week I wrote about FY2025 Postsecondary federal grants and the funding priorities. Not only do these funding priorities mark a shift from Biden-era priorities, but the funding mechanism seemed broken — the grants and funding priorities were announced mid November with prospective applicants having at most 14 days to prepare and submit their grant proposals!
This short timeline means many programs won’t even be in the running for funding.
It also leaves folks to wonder about the quality of proposals that do get submitted.
Finally, in a worst case scenario this may leave some stakeholders wondering whether the compressed timeline might advantage a narrow set of applicants.
C. Public Reassurances on Federal Funding
As questions and concerns arise in response to Federal plans to eliminate the Department of Education, there have been some efforts to reassure education leaders about the flow of future funding.
For example, in March, President Trump stated that the federal government would protect funding for:
Pell Grants
Title I
IDEA (special education)
In his brief comments Thursday, Trump promised to protect funding for Pell Grants, Title I and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon also sought to reassure the public that “closing the department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them.”
— “As Trump Moves to Shutter Education Department, GOP Governors Clamor for Next Prize: Funding Flexibility.” The 74, 20 March 2025.
These statements are important, but they also highlight a key tension: funding may continue, but the agency administering it may not.
For institutions, this could mean new grant portals, new compliance frameworks, and new oversight offices — even if total funding remains stable.
D. Congressional Action Still Required for Full Closure
Closing a Cabinet-level agency outright typically requires congressional legislation. Some functions — such as civil rights enforcement — are also bound by statutory requirements that limit how far an administration can go without Congress.
However, by transferring most operational programs to other departments, the administration can effectively shrink ED to a shell of its former self, making formal closure a matter of codifying an already-completed reorganization.
What This Means for the Education Sector: Key Watch Points
Although many details are still emerging, several implications are already becoming clear for organizations working in education, postsecondary innovation, and K–12 partnerships.
1. Administrative Homes Will Shift
Grant programs once managed under ED may be administered by:
Labor (workforce-related programs, K–12 formula funds, HEA programs)
HHS (childcare, community support programs)
Interior (tribal programs)
This affects:
Where Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) appear
Reporting requirements
Performance monitoring frameworks
Institutional contacts and compliance offices
2. Guidance May Fragment or Change
Agencies inheriting programs may:
Issue new implementation guidance
Revise performance expectations
Interpret compliance rules differently than ED historically has
Organizations will want to follow updates closely — especially those receiving funds through HEA, TRIO, Title III/V, or state-based K–12 partnerships.
3. Civil Rights Oversight Could Shift
If OCR is moved — possibly to the Department of Justice — institutions may see:
Different investigative timelines
Revised enforcement priorities
More or less federal scrutiny depending on the reorganization
For colleges and universities, Title IX and disability compliance are core operational responsibilities; any structural shift matters.
4. Transitional Risk Is Real, Even if Funding Continues
The administration has promised not to cut off funding.
But transitional risks include:
Delayed NOFO release timelines
Confusion around who to contact
Portal and systems migrations
Temporary gaps in technical assistance
State variability in managing new responsibilities
These are predictable in any large federal realignment — and organizations may want contingency plans for delays or shifting requirements.
Possible Scenarios: What Might Happen Next?
Given where things stand, three emerging scenarios seem most plausible.
These reflect current reporting, the executive order’s language, and the early inter-agency transfers already visible.
Scenario 1: Broad Transfer + Formal Closure
ED’s major program offices finish moving to Labor, HHS, and Interior. Congress codifies the closure with legislation…
What this could mean:
State flexibility increases significantly
Regulatory oversight becomes more distributed
Federal grantmaking cycles adjust to agency missions (e.g., workforce alignment at Labor)
Scenario 2: Partial Reorganization, Department Remains
Congress resists full closure, but inter-agency transfers persist. ED becomes a much smaller agency focused on:
Federal Student Aid
Civil rights enforcement
Limited program oversight
What this could mean:
Institutions continue interacting with ED, but far less frequently
A hybrid system develops that requires navigating multiple federal departments
Scenario 3: Hybrid Model with Delayed Implementation
Political, legal, or administrative challenges slow the transition. Some transfers proceed; others stall. ED remains structurally intact but weakened.
What this could mean:
Prolonged uncertainty
A longer transition period with overlapping guidance
Institutions needing to track multiple regulatory pathways simultaneously
Final Thoughts
For the education community, the effort to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education is not a distant policy debate — it is a clear and present objective of the current administration unfolding in real time, right now. These actions have wide-ranging practical implications for funding, compliance, and long-term program planning.
Many details remain in flux, and the timeline may stretch over several fiscal cycles, but the momentum and direction seem clear:
a shift toward states
a redistribution of federal oversight responsibilities
the likelihood of new agency partners for programs historically housed within ED
For organizations working in K–12 and higher education — whether as institutions, nonprofits, or edtech innovators — the most effective step right now is simply staying informed and building flexibility into planning.
As the transition continues, monitoring agency updates, following inter-agency agreements, and revisiting grant calendars will help ensure that your strategic work remains aligned with a rapidly changing federal landscape.
If you’d like help monitoring specific programs, interpreting new guidance, or forecasting how shifts in federal oversight may affect your next grant cycle, EdPro Communications is here to support your mission.
