The potential dismantling of the Department of Education: What it means for students and colleges

The future of the U.S. Department of Education hangs in the balance as the Trump administration pushes forward with efforts to weaken or eliminate the agency. While the department cannot be fully dismantled without congressional approval, experts warn that significant changes are already underway, potentially disrupting student loan programs, college access, and financial aid distribution.

The Department of Education was established in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter and has faced repeated challenges from Republican administrations. Former President Ronald Reagan sought to abolish the agency, and during his first term, President Trump attempted to merge it with the Labor Department. Now, in his second term, Trump has renewed his efforts, vowing to remove what he calls "radicals" from the department and transfer its responsibilities to state and local governments.

Trump’s nominee for Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, is expected to play a key role in this process. “I want Linda to put herself out of a job,” Trump stated at a recent White House press conference. McMahon, a former administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, faced questioning in her Senate confirmation hearing about her role in scaling back the department’s functions.

Despite Trump’s plans, public opinion does not seem to support the move. A recent poll by Data for Progress, conducted on behalf of the Student Borrower Protection Center and the Groundwork Collaborative, found that 61% of likely voters oppose dismantling the Education Department through an executive order, while only 34% approve.

While the department remains intact for now, significant cuts are already taking place. The Institute of Education Sciences, which conducts vital research on educational performance and student outcomes, has been significantly reduced under the oversight of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team. This has led to the cancellation of 169 contracts, including those related to collecting and reporting key education statistics.

Education policy experts argue that these cuts could have long-term consequences. “Sensible public policy for education depends on strong research and data collection,” said Sameer Gadkaree, president of The Institute for College Access & Success. “Without it, Americans will be in the dark on shifts in student debt, graduation rates, and how taxpayer dollars should be invested.”

One of the biggest concerns surrounding the potential elimination of the Education Department is the future of student loans. The department currently oversees a $1.6 trillion federal student loan program that supports more than 42 million borrowers. If the department is dismantled, another federal agency would need to take over this responsibility, with the Treasury Department being the most likely candidate.

However, experts warn that such a transition would be anything but smooth. “People take out student loans at a very young age, and Congress has built in unique protections and benefits for borrowers,” said James Kvaal, former U.S. Under Secretary of Education. “There’s a real question about whether the Treasury would prioritize students’ needs the way the Education Department does.”

Karen McCarthy, vice president of public policy at the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, echoed these concerns. “Our biggest worry is that if student loan management is transferred to another agency, the process could be chaotic and leave millions of borrowers in limbo,” she said.

Some supporters of the administration’s plan argue that eliminating the federal Education Department could improve education by decentralizing funding and decision-making. “The intent is to redistribute federal education funds to states and localities, which are better suited to address their unique needs,” said Tomas Philipson, a professor of public policy at the University of Chicago and former acting chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

While this approach could grant states more control, critics warn that it may also lead to disparities in educational quality and access. Federal oversight ensures that students in underserved communities receive equitable support, and without it, some fear that education funding could become more uneven across states.

As the Trump administration continues to chip away at the Education Department’s influence, students, borrowers, and educational institutions are left with mounting uncertainty. Whether through deep budget cuts or a full-scale dismantling, the future of federal student aid, loan servicing, and education policy remains unclear.

With billions of dollars and millions of students at stake, any restructuring of the Department of Education will have far-reaching consequences. The coming months will be crucial in determining whether Congress intervenes or allows the administration’s plans to move forward. For now, students and borrowers should stay informed and prepare for potential shifts in the way federal education programs are managed.