Plan to Close Education Department Faces Pushback

Bill document with black pen on paper — Photo: Tada Images / Shutterstock

America’s Education Secretary says she is working to “fire” herself as her department shifts core duties to other agencies, aiming to prove Congress does not need a standalone Education Department.

Story Snapshot

Labor and Education signed agreements moving big program operations to Labor while Education keeps oversight.
Treasury is set to handle key student-loan operations and default collections under a separate arrangement.
President Trump ordered steps to enable closing the department, sharpening legal and political fights.
Senators warn the moves may exceed legal authority and risk aid delays without proven performance data.

What changed: Education programs moved, but oversight stayed

On November 18, 2025, the Departments of Labor and Education announced new partnerships that shift day-to-day work for major K–12 and college programs to the Department of Labor. The plan covers grant competitions, technical help, and links to workforce programs, while the Department of Education keeps statutory oversight. A congressional resolution also notes an agreement that moved career and technical education services under the Carl D. Perkins Act to Labor’s Employment and Training Administration. Supporters call this a proof that operations can move without harming services.

Officials say the transfer model spans elementary, secondary, and postsecondary areas rather than a narrow pilot. The Department of Labor was set to run most postsecondary grants under the Higher Education Act, while the Department of Education maintains policy control and accountability. The design aims to use existing workforce systems to speed service and cut overhead. Backers argue that moving operations, not legal authority, can reduce bureaucracy, a long-running concern for voters on both the right and left.

The student-loan piece: Treasury steps in

The Treasury Department told lawmakers it would take on collections for defaulted federal student loans and support the return to repayment, under an interagency agreement with Education. Reporting described this as part of a broader idea to test whether Treasury could handle more student-aid operations over time, again with Education holding oversight. The core claim is that financial operations can sit where the money systems already live, while the Education Department sets rules and checks performance.

Lawmakers who oppose the plan argue that later phases could sweep in core student-aid work such as Free Application for Federal Student Aid processing, college eligibility checks, and Pell Grant payments, with legal and service risks if done without new laws. They also say agencies have not supplied timelines, costs, or clear borrower benefits, and that earlier interagency deals drove extra costs and delayed grants for weeks. These concerns highlight the stakes for students, schools, and lenders if systems stumble during a handoff.

Legal stakes: Can an agency shrink itself?

The Supreme Court record shows President Trump ordered the Secretary of Education to take all steps needed to enable closing the department, which raised the profile of this restructuring fight. A related lawsuit over mass layoffs won a district court order to rehire thousands, but the Supreme Court later stayed that injunction, leaving the outcome uncertain while appeals continue. The court filings and orders confirm that implementation runs alongside live legal conflict.

Members of Congress, led by Senators Raphael Warnock and Elizabeth Warren, say the cited interagency powers do not let the executive branch bypass authorizing and appropriations laws. They argue that moving special education, civil rights enforcement, or broad student-aid functions would exceed current authority and risk service breakdowns. One Senate bill would bar transfers of administration, grants, rights enforcement, and data tasks across agencies, drawing a hard line against the strategy.

Why this matters for families, schools, and taxpayers

For parents, teachers, and borrowers, the question is simple: do payments arrive on time and does someone answer the phone? The administration says shifting operations to agencies with bigger back offices will cut waste and speed help, and points to agreements that keep Education in charge of oversight. Critics say promises are not enough without audits that show steady or better results, especially on grants and aid that students need to stay in class. The gap is data, not rhetoric.

Both sides reflect a broader worry that Washington serves itself first. Supporters see a chance to trim layers and curb a department they view as distant and political. Opponents see a power play that scrambles lines of duty and blurs who is accountable when things go wrong. Until independent reviews confirm stable performance after each transfer, the risk is that families and schools become the test subjects in a fight over structure rather than service.