During his first presidency, Donald Trump threatened to close the U.S. Department of Education. It turned out to be bluster. This time, however, it could actually happen.
President Trump recently told reporters that he’d like his nominee for Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to “put herself out of a job.” It has been widely reported that the President plans to issue an executive order aimed at dismantling the agency, likely moving aspects of the Department to other agencies. The consequences for American children and their communities would be devastating.
This paper analyzes the ramifications of closing the Department. It offers an update to the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s 2016 analysis, the last time the agency’s closure was seriously threatened.
According to our analysis, shutting down the Education Department could result in the loss or delay of more than $70 billion for essential programs for students. Of this amount, $37 billion is for K-12 programs – the equivalent amount that it takes to educate more than 2 million students across the country.
That impact does not even include federal student loans – which provide over $1.6 trillion to help students achieve their dreams of higher education. Even if these key education programs are not eliminated entirely but moved to other agencies, those disruptions could lead to significant delays and inefficiencies in getting the dollars out.
Only Congress can eliminate a federal agency entirely, but an executive order aimed at closing the Department could debilitate the agency. For instance, the order’s directives could relocate programs to other federal agencies, shrink the number of agency employees, or otherwise curtail the agency’s capacity to fulfill its mission.
In fact, this process has already begun. In early February, the new administration put dozens of Department staff on administrative leave. Earlier this week, the Trump administration abruptly canceled about 170 contracts held by the Institute of Education Sciences, the Department’s research arm.
Of course, it’s not likely that the Department or its functions will be fully eradicated. Previous proposals to eliminate the Department, including a bill introduced in the last Congress, would shift key functions to other agencies without eliminating the programs themselves. But, as Margaret Spellings recently pointed out, “Can workforce programs live at the Department of Labor? Sure, they can. But is the disruption of relocating those programs, those employees, worth the squeeze?”
The answer is “no.” Relocating programs to other agencies would require significant resources, in both human capital and technology. Even small administrative or technical changes can lead to disastrous results. Just consider the technical glitches that impacted passengers flying on American Airlines in 2024 and on Southwest Airlines in 2023. Software outages, even for as little as 20 minutes, caused thousands of flights to be delayed or canceled. This type of domino effect could occur in the government as well, and the consequences would be felt by students, teachers, and families.
If the goal is to limit the federal footprint and make government work more efficiently, closing the Department and shifting its key activities and programs to new agencies is hardly efficient. In fact, it would impose harmful roadblocks to serving the 50 million students in U.S. public schools and the 87 million students and parents who rely on federal student loans.
If the goal is to limit the federal footprint and make government work more efficiently, closing the Department and shifting its key activities and programs to new agencies is hardly efficient.
Trump's Impact On Critical Education Funds
Efforts to dismantle the Department would impact education at every level. While it’s unclear if funding for the agency’s key programs would disappear entirely, there is little doubt that they would be at risk of delays and/or decreases if moved to another agency. The elimination of the Department would jeopardize:
- $36.6 billion in Pell Grants supporting 6.6 million college students. California students, who receive a collective $4.4 billion in Pell funds, would be hardest hit. Some colleges might have to close as a result.
- $18 billion to support 26 million students from low-income backgrounds under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). That’s $1 billion in vital education funding for Florida alone.
- $15 billion to support 7.4 million school-aged students with disabilities who receive services through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Texas, in particular, would suffer as it relies on the federal government for $1.3 billion in critical funds for special education.
- $4 billion to provide employment services to individuals with disabilities. That would be a loss of $170 million just for Ohio.
- $2 billion to connect students to career learning and workforce development. For New York alone, that would be $117 million less to help prepare their students for the jobs of the future.
On top of that, $1.6 trillion in federal student loans would be at risk. Most undergraduate students (55 percent) rely on federal aid to pursue higher education and widen their job prospects.
Only Congress can eliminate a federal agency entirely, but an executive order aimed at closing the Department could debilitate the agency.
But re-regulating federal student aid programs would almost certainly delay funding, causing massive ripple effects and possibly shuttering many colleges – or at least causing them great fiscal pain. Almost one thousand colleges have more than a third of their students relying on Pell. At Texas Southern University, more than 70 percent of students receive Pell grants.
Also at risk is the $2 billion for the 800,000 students living near military bases, on Native American reservations, or other federal properties served by Impact Aid. Iowa, which has a large number of military installations, would lose $466 million. Moreover, dismantling the Department would endanger the $200 million provided to the 9.8 million students in rural schools. Oklahoma’s students would be severely impacted, to the tune of $13.3 million.
In sum, the ability of states, districts, institutions of higher education, students, and families to efficiently and reliably access the more than $70 billion provided through these programs would be in jeopardy. Even delays of a few months could severely hamstring school districts like the Houston Independent School District and the School District of Philadelphia, where federal funds make up more than 20 percent of funding.
The ability of states, districts, institutions of higher education, students, and families to efficiently and reliably access the more than $70 billion provided through these programs would be in jeopardy.
State-by-State Funding Provided By Key Federal K-12 Programs
The table below shows the amount of federal education funds provided by each of the following programs: Title I of ESEA, the IDEA part B program, the Rural and Low Income Schools program, Impact Aid, and Perkins/Career and Technical Education program.
| State | Title I | IDEA | Rural Education | Impact Aid | CTE and Workforce Development | Total Funding From These Key Federal K-12 Programs |
| Alabama | $303M | $239M | $5.5M | $3M | $36M | $586.5M |
| Alaska | $53.8M | $50.3M | $885K | $159K | $8M | $113.1M |
| Arizona | $345M | $272M | $6.5M | $238M | $52M | $913.5M |
| Arkansas | $177M | $152M | $6M | $633K | $22M | $357.6M |
| California | $2.2B | $1.6B | $13.4M | $123M | $262M | $4.2B |
| Colorado | $186M | $220M | $3M | $54M | $30M | $493M |
| Connecticut | $156M | $174M | $1.4M | $7.6M | $19M | $358M |
| Delaware | $59M | $50M | $214K | $53K | $8.3M | $117.6M |
| District of Columbia | $60M | $142M | $0 | $2.5M | $8.3M | $212.8M |
| Florida | $1B | $858M | $4M | $11.5M | $134M | $2B |
| Georgia | $653M | $457M | $8.2M | $23M | $75M | $1.2B |
| Hawaii | $72M | $55M | $0 | $50M | $13M | $190M |
| Idaho | $64M | $78M | $2.2M | $15M | $13M | $172.2M |
| Illinois | $778M | $652M | $8M | $36M | $77M | $1.6B |
| Indiana | $284M | $338M | $1.8M | $1M | $47M | $671.8M |
| Iowa | $113M | $158M | $5M | $466M | $19M | $761M |
| Kansas | $122M | $149M | $4.4M | $39M | $18M | $332.4M |
| Kentucky | $278M | $218M | $6.7M | $2.3M | $35M | $540M |
| Louisiana | $401M | $241M | $4.3M | $10M | $36M | $692.3M |
| Maine | $61M | $72.2M | $2M | $4M | $9M | $148.2M |
| Maryland | $345M | $285M | $156K | $9M | $32M | $671.2M |
| Massachusetts | $289M | $366M | $1.5M | $812K | $37M | $694.3M |
| Michigan | $541M | $508M | $6M | $12M | $64M | $1.1B |
| Minnesota | $192M | $256M | $6M | $38M | $29M | $521M |
| Mississippi | $236M | $156M | $7M | $3M | $23.2M | $425.2M |
| Missouri | $269M | $296M | $9M | $36M | $40M | $650M |
| Montana | $58M | $51M | $5M | $83M | $11M | $208M |
| Nebraska | $85M | $99M | $5.2M | $27M | $12M | $228.2M |
| Nevada | $169M | $107M | $485K | $9.2M | $21M | $306.7M |
| New Hampshire | $51M | $62.3M | $2M | $7M | $9M | $131.3M |
| New Jersey | $463M | $464M | $2.7M | $30M | $50M | $1B |
| New Mexico | $143M | $119M | $4M | $115M | $24M | $405M |
| New York | $1.5B | $984M | $5.8M | $82M | $117M | $2.7B |
| North Carolina | $518M | $461M | $9M | $25M | $71M | $1.1B |
| North Dakota | $51M | $44M | $1.6M | $40M | $14M | $150.6M |
| Ohio | $656M | $559M | $5M | $4.8M | $71.7M | $1.3B |
| Oklahoma | $227M | $196M | $13.3M | $61.4M | $27.3M | $525M |
| Oregon | $166M | $175M | $2.6M | $5M | $27M | $375.6M |
| Pennsylvania | $752M | $560M | $1.6M | $4.8M | $71.6M | $1.4B |
| Rhode Island | $60M | $58.2M | $124K | $2.6M | $9.4M | $130.3M |
| South Carolina | $283M | $238M | $5M | $2.3M | $34.2M | $562.5M |
| South Dakota | $57.3M | $48.8M | $2M | $93M | $8.6M | $209.7M |
| Tennessee | $343M | $321M | $4M | $2.7M | $43.6M | $714.3M |
| Texas | $1.8B | $1.3B | $21.4M | $145M | $209M | $3.5B |
| Utah | $79.6M | $158M | $1.6M | $12.3M | $22M | $273.5M |
| Vermont | $42.8M | $42.5M | $42K | $336K | $6.8M | $92.5M |
| Virginia | $327M | $387M | $2.6M | $48.7M | $49.5M | $814.8M |
| Washington | $307M | $301M | $3.4M | $110M | $41.4M | $762.8M |
| West Virginia | $109M | $98M | $2.8M | $7.4M | $13.7M | $230.9M |
| Wisconsin | $238M | $274M | $5.4M | $23.6M | $35.4M | $576.4M |
| Wyoming | $46M | $43.7M | $137K | $21.3M | $7M | $118.1M |
Nationally, the amount of funding provided to states through these key K-12 formula grant programs is equivalent to the salaries of more than 550,000 teachers. Federal funds from these programs equal the salary of 39,000 teachers in Florida, and as many as 59,000 teachers in Texas. Without these funds, or with delayed access to these funds, states and districts would be on the hook to find ways to keep half a million teachers employed, exacerbating the long-standing teacher shortages and budget shortfalls already facing state and local governments.
State-by-State Impact
| State | Total Funding From Key Federal K-12 Programs | Potential Teacher Jobs At Risk* | Potential Student Impact** |
| Alabama | $586.5M | 10,504 | 43,444 |
| Alaska | $113.1M | 1,535 | 4,675 |
| Arizona | $913.5M | 16,737 | 69,205 |
| Arkansas | $357.6M | 6,814 | 24,329 |
| California | $4.2B | 48,105 | 217,534 |
| Colorado | $493M | 8,430 | 28,011 |
| Connecticut | $358M | 4,410 | 13,114 |
| Delaware | $117.6M | 1,791 | 5,707 |
| District of Columbia | $212.8M | 2,579 | 5,630 |
| Florida | $2B | 39,186 | 143,393 |
| Georgia | $1.2B | 19,857 | 78,465 |
| Hawaii | $190M | 2,836 | 9,500 |
| Idaho | $172.2M | 3,175 | 14,718 |
| Illinois | $1.6B | 21,452 | 65,443 |
| Indiana | $671.8M | 12,412 | 46,014 |
| Iowa | $761M | 12,841 | 43,988 |
| Kansas | $332.4M | 6,064 | 20,393 |
| Kentucky | $540M | 9,895 | 34,615 |
| Louisiana | $692.3M | 13,218 | 43,000 |
| Maine | $148.2M | 2,522 | 6,443 |
| Maryland | $671.2M | 8,858 | 31,362 |
| Massachusetts | $694.3M | 7,810 | 26,704 |
| Michigan | $1.1B | 17,347 | 63,539 |
| Minnesota | $521M | 7,607 | 26,050 |
| Mississippi | $425.2M | 9,016 | 31,731 |
| Missouri | $650M | 12,385 | 41,401 |
| Montana | $208M | 3,879 | 11,751 |
| Nebraska | $228.2M | 3,974 | 12,011 |
| Nevada | $306.7M | 5,306 | 22,224 |
| New Hampshire | $131.3M | 2,091 | 5,564 |
| New Jersey | $1B | 12,774 | 36,320 |
| New Mexico | $405M | 7,462 | 26,129 |
| New York | $2.7B | 29,156 | 83,503 |
| North Carolina | $1.1B | 20,207 | 82,121 |
| North Dakota | $150.6M | 2,700 | 7,455 |
| Ohio | $1.3B | 20,530 | 70,081 |
| Oklahoma | $525M | 9,673 | 40,385 |
| Oregon | $375.6M | 5,391 | 18,412 |
| Pennsylvania | $1.4B | 19,239 | 61,504 |
| Rhode Island | $130.3M | 1,696 | 5,818 |
| South Carolina | $562.5M | 10,535 | 34,091 |
| South Dakota | $209.7M | 4,214 | 13,887 |
| Tennessee | $714.3M | 13,322 | 53,306 |
| Texas | $3.5B | 59,018 | 219,962 |
| Utah | $273.5M | 4,666 | 22,236 |
| Vermont | $92.5M | 1,471 | 3,233 |
| Virginia | $814.8M | 13,588 | 47,372 |
| Washington | $762.8M | 9,350 | 34,673 |
| West Virginia | $230.9M | 4,589 | 13,910 |
| Wisconsin | $576.4M | 9,535 | 32,201 |
| Wyoming | $118.1M | 1,942 | 5,204 |
*These numbers represent the number of teacher jobs, based on the average teacher salary in each state, equivalent to the federal education funding for five major K-12 programs that would be at risk.
**These numbers represent the total number of students who can be educated (based on the per pupil funding for each state) with the amount of federal education funding for five major K-12 programs that would be at risk.
Public schools serve 90 percent of America’s children, and these funds reach about 100,000 public schools across the country. Federal funding makes up approximately 11 percent of elementary and secondary education budgets nationally. In some states, particularly rural states, federal funds make up as much as 20 percent of the budget. For example, federal funds make up 19 percent of education funding in Montana, and 20 percent in South Dakota. These are also among the states that currently spend the least per student. Major changes to the Department and its ability to provide funding and support to states will have the greatest impact on rural states as well as states with the lowest revenue from local property taxes. States that voted for Trump would have more funding at stake.
Further, the timing of efforts to eliminate the Department coincides with the expiration of pandemic relief funding at the end of 2024. In response to the pandemic, states developed essential and urgent recovery programs that must be sustained. States are relying on federal funds from formula programs more than ever to drive learning recovery and reduce educator shortages. As revealed in the 2024 Nation’s Report Card, U.S. students still have not yet rebounded to pre-pandemic scores in reading or math. Now is not the time to further jeopardize access to vital federal education funds.
Methodology
This analysis used data provided in January 2025 by the U.S. Department of Education, including a summary of programs administered by the Department and a state-by-state breakdown of funds provided to each state. To calculate the $70 billion for essential education programs that would be at stake, the authors totaled and rounded the Fiscal Year 2024 amounts for the following programs for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia: Pell Grants, Title I of ESEA, the IDEA part B program, the Rural and Low Income Schools program, Impact Aid, Perkins/Career and Technical Education program, and Vocational Rehabilitation (employment services for individuals with disabilities). To calculate the $34 billion total for K-12 education programs, the authors removed from that total the amount directed to Pell Grants and Vocational Rehabilitation in Fiscal Year 2024.
The authors calculated that the $34 billion figure equates to the amount spent to educate more than 2 million students across the country by dividing $34 billion by the average amount spent nationally per pupil.
The authors used five major K-12 formula grant program funding levels to demonstrate state and national funding implications of proposals to dismantle the agency. They incorporated Title I of ESEA, the IDEA part B program, the Rural and Low Income Schools program, Impact Aid, and Perkins/Career and Technical Education program.
To calculate what these funds would be equivalent to in teacher salaries, the authors used the most recent average elementary and secondary teacher salaries by state figures from the National Center for Education Statistics. Subsequently, the authors divided the total dollar amount each state receives from these five programs by the average teacher salary in each state.
To calculate what these funds would be equivalent to in per-pupil expenditures, the authors used the most recent state-by-state expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools from the National Center on Education Statistics. The authors divided the total dollar amount each state receives from the five major grant programs by the average per-pupil expenditure in each state.
These calculations are designed to show in practical terms the amount of funding that is at stake from the U.S. Department of Education and how large a role the funding plays in the day-to-day functioning of public schools in all states.
