In a stunning policy shift that has sent shockwaves through the education sector, President Donald J. Trump has dismantled the U.S. Department of Education. Framing the move as an overdue return of control to the states, Trump described it as a step toward “freedom of choice,” empowering families and communities to decide what’s best for their children’s education without interference from Washington.
The now-defunct Department, which oversaw national education standards, civil rights protections, and billions in federal funding, has been stripped of its authority. In its place, states are being asked to take full ownership of their education systems-designing their own curricula, setting standards, managing teacher certification, and overseeing accountability.
While advocates of decentralization celebrate this as a chance to innovate, critics warn that it is a recipe for chaos. Wealthier states with robust education infrastructure may thrive under local control, continuing to produce competitive students. But under-resourced states-especially in the South and rural Midwest-may struggle to sustain even basic levels of quality without federal funding or guidance. The result could be an educational patchwork where opportunity and excellence depend not on merit, but on geography.
The immediate fallout includes the layoff of over 4,400 federal employees and the withdrawal of more than $82 billion in federal funding that supported everything from early education to college access. Among the most affected are programs like Title I Grants, which provided over $16 billion annually to schools serving low-income communities, and Pell Grants, which enabled well over 7 million students from working-class families to attend college. Federal assistance for children with disabilities under IDEA, school meal programs, and support for English language learners and STEM education have also been impacted.
Families with means-predominantly white and affluent-can pivot to well-funded private schools and benefit from increased local investment.
These programs once served as lifelines to marginalized and disadvantaged communities. With their funding now uncertain and their management delegated to state governments, the concern is that racial and socioeconomic gaps will widen. Families with means-predominantly white and affluent-can pivot to well-funded private schools and benefit from increased local investment. But millions of low-income students may be left behind, attending increasingly under-resourced public schools with shrinking support systems. Many experts fear that a two-tier education system is emerging, one that privileges the rich while further marginalizing the poor. In such a system, the quality of a child’s education will depend more than ever on ZIP code, race, and economic status. Over time, this could entrench inequality and fuel societal divisions.
At the same time, Trump’s move raises concerns about the rise of private influence. As state budgets tighten and federal support fades, education may become increasingly dependent on private foundations, corporate partnerships, and philanthropic donors. While this could open doors for innovation, it also risks allowing private interests to shape public education according to market demands rather than democratic values. There is a growing worry that public schools may become politically sidelined and financially starved while elite private institutions thrive.
Trump’s decision is not without precedent or rationale. For years, critics have argued that the Department of Education had grown bloated, inefficient, and overbearing-more focused on compliance and paperwork than actual outcomes. They say returning control to local authorities can foster accountability, responsiveness, and creativity in tackling challenges specific to each region.
But the scale and speed of the change have left little time for adaptation. Education is not a short-term enterprise. It is a long-term investment whose results unfold over generations. A shift this drastic, without a safety net or transition plan, risks undermining the very students it seeks to empower. To better understand the potential consequences, it’s important to recall how the federal role in education evolved. For much of U.S. history, education was left to states and local school districts. But this decentralized approach produced huge inequalities-between urban and rural districts, between the North and South, and especially between white and Black communities.
The federal government stepped in gradually but decisively. The GI Bill in 1944 opened college doors to returning veterans. The landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling in 1954 declared school segregation unconstitutional. In 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act brought large-scale federal funding to disadvantaged districts as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975 ensured that children with disabilities had equal access to public education. Finally, in 1979, the Department of Education was created under President Jimmy Carter to centralize these efforts and ensure consistent national standards.
Since then, federal oversight has helped enforce civil rights, improve data collection, expand access to higher education, and provide targeted funding to the schools and students who need it most. Dismantling this legacy means reverting to a pre-1960s model-a time when disparities in access and quality went largely unaddressed.
Whether Trump’s bold restructuring will yield success remains to be seen. Supporters believe it will lead to innovation and efficiency, but critics argue it will exacerbate inequality and undercut the nation’s competitiveness. If the next four years do not produce measurable improvements, the political winds could shift. A future Democratic administration, or a new Republican president, could potentially restore the Department and reinstate federal programs. But undoing such a sweeping reform will take time-and by then, state systems may have fully adapted to a decentralized model.
What is certain is that this decision represents a defining moment in American education. It challenges long-held assumptions about the role of government, the purpose of public schools, and the meaning of equal opportunity. It forces the nation to ask: Should education be a shared national priority-or a local experiment shaped by wealth, race, and regional politics?
Trump’s education revolution is underway. Whether it becomes a model for the future or a cautionary tale remains an open question.
The writer is a former press secretary to the president; former press minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France and former MD (SRBC).