Power Grab Or Fix? Education Gets Gutted

The Trump administration is moving major Education Department duties to other agencies, and critics say the fight now turns on whether Washington is dodging Congress.

Quick Take

The Education Department says the new agreements will **break up the federal education bureaucracy** and **return education to the states**.^[7]
The move shifts day-to-day management of several programs to agencies including Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, and State.^[1]^[3]^[5]
Officials say the changes cover about $31 billion in K-12 and postsecondary spending, though the full total is still unclear.^[1]^[5]
Legal critics argue major Education Department powers were created by Congress and cannot be wiped out by executive action alone.^[8]^[9]

What the Administration Moved

The Department of Education announced six new interagency agreements that move program management to four other federal agencies.^[7] The department said the partners are better positioned to deliver results for students and taxpayers. The transfers include elementary and secondary education, postsecondary grants, Indian education programs, on-campus child care support, foreign medical accreditation, and international education and foreign language studies.^[5]

Politico reported that Title I money for low-income students will shift to the Labor Department, while Title II and other grants will also move under the new setup.^[1] The same report said the administration is using the Economy Act as legal justification.^[1] K-12 Dive reported that the Education Department would still keep formal responsibility for the programs, even as much of the day-to-day work moves out.^[5]

Why Supporters Call It a Win

Supporters of the move see a long-overdue reset of a bloated federal system. The Education Department’s own press release said the Trump administration is taking “bold action” to “break up the federal education bureaucracy” and “return education to the states.”^[7] That message fits a long conservative argument that local control works better than distant federal management, especially after years of rising costs, weak results, and heavy-handed Washington rules.

Cato argued that the department should end and said the transfers may be a lawful way to move parts of the agency while keeping ultimate responsibility in place.^[6] That view matters because it shows the administration is not simply pretending Congress does not exist. Instead, it is using interagency agreements to test how far existing law allows federal education tasks to be moved without a formal shutdown vote on Capitol Hill.^[6]

Where the Legal Fight Comes In

Brookings says the Department of Education was created by Congress, so eliminating it requires another act of Congress.^[9] Brookings also says key programs such as Title I, special education, and federal student aid remain in statute and cannot be erased by unilateral action.^[9] That is the core legal challenge for the administration: it can shift operations, but it cannot openly rewrite the law on its own.

The Trump administration plans to transfer several core Education Department responsibilities, including its civil rights and special education programs, to other federal agencies as part of its efforts to dismantle the department.https://t.co/jMaDV9rf9n

— POLITICO (@politico) June 16, 2026

That tension explains why the announcement is drawing sharp resistance from Democrats and advocacy groups.^[3]^[4] Sen. Angus King’s office said appropriations law blocks transfers unless Congress expressly allows them, and critics say the agreements risk adding confusion instead of fixing federal red tape.^[4] K-12 Dive also reported doubts that spreading programs across more agencies will really streamline anything for schools or families.^[5]

What This Means Next

The biggest unknown is how far the administration plans to go. Reported plans do not yet include special education, civil rights enforcement, or student financial aid, but officials have not ruled out future moves.^[1]^[4] A senior department official said the agency is still exploring options for those programs.^[4] That leaves a major question hanging over the whole effort: is this a limited management shift, or the first real stage of dismantling the department?

The answer may depend on courts, Congress, and the documents behind each transfer. Government Executive reported that internal concerns already exist about how hard it may be to move some operations.^[2] If the administration wants to keep pushing, it will need to show that the new setup works in practice and survives legal review. Until then, supporters will call it decentralization, and opponents will call it an end-run around the law.^[2]^[6]