03-25-2025

Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14242 directs the Secretary of Education to take all legally permissible steps to close the U.S. Department of Education and return authority over education to states and local communities.

Money: While the order itself does not appropriate funds, it aims to dismantle an agency with a 2024 budget of approximately $238 billion. The order's premise is that federal spending on education, including around $200 billion during the COVID-19 pandemic on top of over $60 billion annually, has not yielded results.

Your Impact: The direct effect on an average American is currently uncertain, as the order's full implementation depends on future congressional action. However, it signals a major potential shift in how federal education funds for programs supporting low-income students, students with disabilities, and college loans are managed and distributed.

Status: Signed by the President on March 20, 2025. The administration is now directed to facilitate the closure to the maximum extent permitted by law, but eliminating the department entirely requires an act of Congress.

What's Actually in the Bill

Executive Order 14242 initiates a process to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. It asserts that federal control over education has failed and that authority should revert to the state and local levels. The order instructs the Secretary of Education to begin this process while ensuring that essential services continue without interruption. It also mandates that federal education funds only go to programs that comply with Administration policy, specifically terminating programs related to "diversity, equity, and inclusion" and "gender ideology."

Core Provisions:

  • The Secretary of Education is ordered to take all necessary steps, as permitted by law, to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.
  • Authority over education is to be returned to the States and local communities.
  • The allocation of any remaining federal education funds will be contingent on compliance with federal law and Administration policy, including the termination of "illegal discrimination" associated with "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) or programs promoting "gender ideology".
  • The order states that the uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits should be ensured during the transition.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order claims its purpose is to address the failure of federal control over education and empower those closer to the students.

  1. To address failing educational outcomes, citing that American reading and math scores are near historical lows.
  2. To dismantle an entrenched federal bureaucracy that has not proven beneficial.
  3. To return authority over education to states and local communities, which are seen as better equipped to manage it.
  4. To improve the management of the $1.6 trillion federal student loan portfolio by moving it from the Department of Education, which the order describes as ill-equipped for such a function.

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: K-12 and Higher Education.
Timeline: The order was signed on March 20, 2025, and directs the process to begin immediately. However, a full closure requires legislation from Congress and would likely face a lengthy political and legal process.
Scope: The order has a national scope, affecting all federal education programs and funding that flows to states, school districts, and higher education institutions.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Early Years (1867-1979):

A federal Department of Education was first created in 1867 to collect statistics on the nation's schools but was quickly demoted to an Office of Education due to fears of overreach. For over a century, federal involvement in education remained relatively limited, with the Office of Education housed within various other agencies. The 1950s and 1960s saw an expansion of federal funding and the creation of landmark programs like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and the Higher Education Act of 1965.

A Cabinet-Level Agency (1979-Present):

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter, fulfilling a campaign promise to the National Education Association, signed the Department of Education Organization Act, establishing the department as a cabinet-level agency. The move was controversial from the start, with many Republicans opposing it as an unconstitutional federal intrusion into local affairs. Since its creation, the idea of abolishing the department has been a recurring theme in conservative politics.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Long-Standing Ideological Goal: The call to abolish the Department of Education has been part of the Republican platform for decades, rooted in a belief in local control over education.
  • "Parents' Rights" Movement: The executive order taps into a contemporary political movement focused on "parents' rights," which advocates for greater parental control over school curricula and policies, particularly concerning race and gender.
  • Criticism of Pandemic-Era Policies: The order references the significant federal spending on schools during the COVID-19 pandemic, framing it as an expensive failure, which resonates with fiscal conservatives and those critical of school closures and remote learning.
  • Project 2025: The action aligns with detailed proposals from Project 2025, a policy playbook from the Heritage Foundation, which outlines a plan for conservative governance, including the dismantling of the Education Department.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This directly affects specific groups—students in low-income areas, students with disabilities, and college students—and the education and financial industries that serve them.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Increased Local Control: Supporters argue that returning power to states and districts could lead to education policies that are more responsive to local needs and values.
  • Reduced Bureaucracy: A potential reduction in federal regulations and paperwork could, in theory, free up resources for schools to focus on instruction.
  • Taxpayer Savings: Proponents argue that eliminating the department's administrative costs could result in savings, although the funds for major programs like Title I and Pell Grants are authorized separately by Congress.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (1-3 Years):

  • Administrative Chaos: Transferring the management of a $1.6 trillion student loan portfolio and numerous grant programs could lead to significant disruptions, delays, and confusion for borrowers and recipients.
  • Funding Uncertainty: School districts and universities that rely on federal funding would face uncertainty about the future of these resources, making long-term planning difficult.
  • Loss of Services: Programs that support students with disabilities (IDEA), low-income students (Title I), and first-generation college students (TRIO) could face cuts or elimination if their functions are not effectively transferred.

Long-term:

  • Widening Inequality: Federal oversight has historically been used to ensure educational equity and enforce civil rights. Critics argue its removal could lead to greater disparities in resources and opportunities between wealthy and poor districts and for minority students.
  • End of National Standards: While the U.S. doesn't have a national curriculum, the federal government sets standards for data collection, accountability, and civil rights enforcement that could disappear.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: Students from low-income families receiving Title I support, students with disabilities covered by IDEA, and college students relying on federal Pell Grants and student loans.
Secondary Groups: Public school teachers and administrators, university staff, and companies that service student loans.
Regional Impact: States and school districts with higher proportions of low-income students and students with disabilities would be disproportionately affected by changes to federal funding formulas.

Bottom Line: While the stated goal is to empower local communities, the immediate effect of dismantling the Department of Education could be significant instability in the systems that fund schools and higher education for the nation's most vulnerable students.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Return Power to the States"

Core Stance: The federal government has no constitutional role in education, and closing the Department of Education is a long-overdue step to restore local control and empower parents.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The Department is an unnecessary federal bureaucracy that has failed to improve student achievement despite massive spending.
  • ✓ Decisions about education are best made by parents and local communities, not Washington D.C. bureaucrats.
  • ✓ The Department pushes a "woke" political agenda on schools through programs like DEI and teachings on gender identity.
  • ⚠️ While some acknowledge the need to continue funding for programs like IDEA and Pell Grants, they believe this can be done more efficiently through block grants to states or other federal agencies.

Legislative Strategy: Supporting the executive order and introducing legislation to formally abolish the department, as some members of Congress have repeatedly done. They aim to shift existing funds into block grants to give states more flexibility.

Democratic Position: "Protect Public Education"

Core Stance: The Department of Education is essential for ensuring equitable access to quality education for all students, especially the most vulnerable, and for upholding civil rights.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The Department is a critical backstop against discrimination and ensures that students with disabilities and those from low-income families receive necessary resources.
  • ✓ Abolishing the Department would harm millions of students, create chaos in the student loan system, and lead to a race to the bottom in educational standards.
  • ✗ They strongly oppose measures like converting federal funds into vouchers for private schools, arguing it diverts taxpayer money from public education.
  • ⚠️ They are open to reforming and improving federal education programs but believe a federal agency is necessary to administer them effectively and ensure accountability.

Legislative Strategy: Opposing the executive order and any legislation to dismantle the department. They are focused on increasing funding for key programs like Title I and IDEA and expanding access to early childhood education and affordable college.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

Proponents of federal involvement in education often cite Congress's authority under the Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) to provide for the "general Welfare of the United States." This allows Congress to allocate funds for education and attach conditions to that funding. Opponents argue the Constitution grants no direct authority over education to the federal government, viewing it as a power reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment.

The Taxing and Spending Clause: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."

Constitutional Implications:

[Legal Principle]: The President cannot unilaterally abolish a Cabinet-level department. Because the Department of Education was created by an act of Congress (the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979), it can only be eliminated by another act of Congress.
[Precedent]: The Supreme Court has generally upheld Congress's right to use its spending power to influence state policy in areas where it does not have direct regulatory authority, as long as the conditions are not coercive.
[Federalism]: This executive order represents a significant flashpoint in the ongoing debate over federalism—the balance of power between the federal government and the states. Abolishing the department would mark a major shift of power back to the states.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The executive order itself is likely to face legal challenges arguing that the President is overstepping his executive authority by directing the closure of an agency without congressional approval. Federal employee unions have already filed suit against related mass-layoff attempts. Any subsequent legislation passed by Congress to dismantle the department and its programs would almost certainly be challenged by states, civil rights groups, and education advocates on both statutory and constitutional grounds.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to support the President's executive order and vote YES on any legislation to close the Department of Education."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Contact members of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to express your support.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the Heritage Foundation advocate for the elimination of the Department of Education.

TO OPPOSE THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the President's executive order and vote NO on any legislation that would dismantle the Department of Education."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining the potential negative impacts on students and schools in your community.
  • Join an Organization: Groups like the National Education Association (NEA), The Education Trust, and Alliance for Quality Education are actively campaigning against the closure of the department.