On March 20, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order aimed at closing the Department of Education. The Order itself does not and cannot shutter the Department, which was established by Congress. So what does the Order mean for schools? 

Executive orders do not create or change existing laws. Instead, they provide direction to federal agencies and agency heads. This executive order directs Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law,” to facilitate the closure of the Department and “return authority over education to the States and local communities.”   

The 1979 Act of Congress that created the Department recognizes that “the primary public responsibility for education is reserved respectively to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.” The law provides that the Department cannot supervise, direct, or control the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution or the content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials.  

The day after issuing the executive order, President Trump announced that special education services will be transferred immediately to the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and that the student loan program will move to the Small Business Administration (SBA). Unanswered questions include the logistics and impact of transferring large-scale programs to agencies without the experience to administer these programs. 

What do these developments mean for the nation’s schools and institutions of higher education?  

The Department of Education provides money to public K-12 schools through Title I (to districts and schools serving lower-income communities) and the IDEA (for services to students with disabilities). Both Title I and IDEA are federal laws. Neither their funding nor their compliance requirements can be altered by executive order. Proposals to send this money to the states as block grants or directly to parents would require congressional action. Although the transfer of the IDEA to HHS – an agency that also has undergone staffing cuts – means that the program will continue, there may be gaps in technical expertise as well as process changes and delays. 

The Department also administers the FAFSA and federal student loans and grants in higher education. Although the president has now transferred this program to the SBA, many program requirements are established by law and should not be changed by such a move. However, procedural changes and delay are likely. Even prior to the March 20 executive order, students were reporting delays in service and access to information. 

The Department also administers the Clery Act, which was created by Congress and cannot be modified by executive order.  Institutions must comply with the Clery Act as a condition of participating in the federal student financial aid program. The Clery Act imposes requirements relating to campus security. As with other functions, enforcement of this law may also be moved, modified, or diminished.  

The Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) collects data and funds educational research. IES also oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is mandated by Congress and has been measuring student achievement for more than 50 years. Even before the executive order, nearly 90% of the staff and research contracts had already been cut.   

Finally, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) investigates complaints related to discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, and age. The Trump Administration has suggested that this function could be transferred to the Department of Justice. Already, OCR’s operations have been significantly diminished (seven of 12 regional offices were closed and approximately half of its employees were laid off), and the Trump Administration has articulated different priorities for civil rights enforcement. Many pending cases have come to a stand-still, while OCR has opened investigations into states, universities, school districts, and athletics associations to advance the administration’s new priorities: ending diversity, equity, and inclusion practices, prohibiting transgender students from participating on female athletics teams and using bathrooms and locker rooms aligned with their gender identity, and enforcing prohibitions on antisemitism. Reducing or eliminating OCR’s role in enforcement likely will result in more complaints at the state level. In addition, because filing an OCR complaint is not required before filing a lawsuit, schools may see more lawsuits filed by parents and students with discrimination grievances.   

Several lawsuits challenging the cuts to the Department and specifically to OCR already have been filed, including one filed by parents and one filed by a group of 21 state attorneys general. Following the executive order, the American Federation of Teachers also indicated it would file suit. We are monitoring these developments. 

In short, while the executive order purports to return authority over education to the states, the states already have comprehensive local authority over education, and the president lacks authority to remove or alter statutory requirements such as those relating to IDEA or civil rights laws.   

The “purpose” section of the executive order states that closing the Department will allow families “to escape a system that is failing them … [and] drastically improve program implementation in higher education.”  The order does not address how closing the Department would improve K-12 and higher education, and it does not address the variations among the 50 states that will affect delivery of services going forward. Much uncertainty lies ahead, including whether Congress takes action to turn the executive order into law and, if not, whether the courts will uphold or overturn the changes.