Introduction

On March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities. This order directs the Secretary of Education to take steps toward closing the Department of Education and returning authority over education to states and local communities. The stated purpose is to address what the order characterizes as failures in the federal education system, including declining test scores and issues with student loan management. The order maintains that federal control over education has been ineffective and that states are better positioned to manage educational programs. It also requires that the allocation of federal education funds comply with federal law and administration policy, specifically targeting programs labeled as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” and those promoting “gender ideology.”

Key Questions for Citizens

1. Constitutional Consideration: How does the proposed closure of a federal department align with the constitutional separation of powers between Congress, which established the Department of Education, and the executive branch?
2. Federalism Framework: What historical precedents exist for shifting education authority between federal and state governments, and how might this affect the balance of federalism in educational policy?
3. Implementation Challenges: Given that the Department of Education manages over $1.6 trillion in student loans and distributes billions in federal education funding, what are the practical challenges of transferring these responsibilities to states or other entities?
4. Equity Implications: How might the elimination of federal oversight affect educational equity across different states, particularly for historically underserved populations that federal programs often target?
5. Policy Continuity: What happens to existing federal education initiatives, mandates, and protections when responsibility transfers to states with varying priorities and resources?

Analytical Framework

Language Analysis

The executive order employs specific rhetorical choices that frame its rationale and goals. The document consistently characterizes federal involvement in education as an “experiment” that has “plainly failed,” establishing a narrative of federal ineffectiveness. The order uses definitive language such as “plainly failed,” “drastically improve,” and “must return” to create a sense of urgency and inevitability.

The order contains normative language that presupposes certain values, particularly around government size and federalism. For example, it refers to an “unaccountable bureaucracy” and characterizes the Department of Education as having “entrenched the education bureaucracy,” reflecting an underlying assumption that bureaucratic structures are inherently problematic.

Notable is the framing of the Department of Education’s creation as politically motivated, referencing President Carter’s “first-ever Presidential endorsement from the country’s largest teachers’ union” as context for the department’s establishment. This framing suggests institutional capture rather than policy-driven formation.

The order also uses specific language regarding diversity programs, characterizing them as “illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’” This phrasing presupposes that such programs constitute discrimination rather than treating this as a contested interpretation.

Evidence Assessment

The order cites several statistics to support its claims about educational outcomes:

• “American reading and math scores are near historical lows”
• “70 percent of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72 percent were below proficient in math”
• The Department of Education manages “a student loan debt portfolio of more than $1.6 trillion”

While these statistics appear to be factual references to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data and federal loan portfolio size, the order does not provide complete context for these figures. For instance, the order does not establish a causal relationship between federal education involvement and test score trends, nor does it address other factors that might influence educational outcomes such as socioeconomic conditions, state-level policies, or COVID-19 pandemic disruptions.

The order compares the Department of Education’s Office of Federal Student Aid (approximately 1,500 employees) to Wells Fargo (over 200,000 employees) to suggest inadequate staffing for loan management. However, this comparison may not account for differing operational models, technological systems, or service scopes between a federal agency and a commercial bank.

Notably absent is evidence about educational outcomes in systems with less federal involvement or data on how state-level management might improve the issues identified.

Legal and Policy Context

The executive order operates within a complex legal framework that constrains its implementation. While the President has authority to direct executive department operations, the Department of Education was established by the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979, an act of Congress. Complete elimination of the department would typically require congressional action to repeal this legislation.

The order acknowledges these constraints with the qualification that actions should be taken “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” This phrasing recognizes the executive branch’s limited authority to unilaterally dismantle a congressionally established department.

Several federal education laws create ongoing obligations that would need resolution, including:

• The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (reauthorized as Every Student Succeeds Act)
• The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
• Higher Education Act provisions governing federal financial aid
• Civil rights laws enforced by the Department’s Office for Civil Rights

The order creates potential conflicts with existing federal court decisions interpreting these laws, particularly regarding civil rights protections. The specific provision targeting “diversity, equity, and inclusion” programs may encounter legal challenges based on precedents establishing parameters for addressing historical inequities.

Implementation would require coordination across multiple governmental levels and potentially new state-level infrastructure to assume federal functions. States currently have varying capacities to manage expanded educational responsibilities, particularly in areas like civil rights enforcement and complex financial aid systems.

Stakeholder Impact Analysis

The proposed closure would have wide-ranging impacts on diverse stakeholders:

Students and Families:

• College students receiving federal financial aid ($126 billion annually) would need assurance of continued support through transition periods
• Students with disabilities protected under federal laws might experience varying implementation of rights across states
• Low-income students benefiting from Title I funding ($16.5 billion) would be subject to new state-level distribution mechanisms

Educational Institutions:

• K-12 schools would need to adapt to new funding mechanisms and reporting requirements determined by states
• Colleges and universities would face uncertainty regarding federal loan programs and regulatory oversight
• Institutions serving high percentages of federally-supported students might experience financial instability during transitions

States and Local Governments:

• States would need to develop new administrative capabilities to manage former federal functions
• Resource disparities between states could lead to uneven educational standards and opportunities
• Local school districts would need to navigate potentially significant changes in funding streams and compliance requirements

Department Employees:

• Approximately 4,400 Department of Education employees would face potential job displacement
• Specialized expertise in federal education programs might be dispersed or lost in transition

The order’s implementation could produce unintended consequences, including:

• Disruption to academic planning for institutions and students during transition periods
• Potential for increased inequality between wealthy and resource-constrained states
• Gaps in civil rights enforcement during administrative reorganization
• Uncertainty in student loan markets affecting borrowing costs and availability

Conclusion

This executive order represents a significant proposed shift in American education governance, aiming to return primary authority to states while reducing federal involvement. The analysis reveals several important considerations: First, full implementation would likely require congressional action beyond executive authority. Second, the transition poses substantial administrative challenges, particularly regarding the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio and ongoing civil rights enforcement. Third, impacts would vary considerably across states with different capabilities and priorities for educational management.

The order reflects longstanding tensions in American federalism regarding the appropriate level of government for various functions. While potentially reducing federal bureaucracy, the proposed changes would create new state-level administrative needs and could exacerbate educational disparities between states. The most significant implication is the fundamental restructuring of federal-state educational relationships established over decades.

Further research is needed regarding transition planning for critical functions, impacts on educational equity across diverse communities, and mechanisms to ensure consistent educational quality across states with varied resources and priorities. Public discussion should consider how to balance local control with national educational interests in an increasingly interconnected economy.

---

Written by Claude Prompt v1
Image by ChatGPT