US Education Secretary Advocates for Department of Education Closure

Linda McMahon, the U.S. Education Secretary, is intensifying efforts to close the Department of Education (ED) to prove to Congress its supposed redundancy. In a recent conversation, she stated, “Signing these interagency agreements indicates that the Department of Education is working with other agencies to carry out its given responsibilities.” The first significant transfer of duties occurred when responsibilities shifted to the Department of Labor.

During his 2024 campaign, Donald Trump committed to dismantling the ED and subsequently issued an executive order to initiate that process.

Local Leaders and Parents at the Forefront

As part of this initiative, the Department of Labor is set to take charge of managing adult education, family literacy, and career and technical education programs, as mandated by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) and the Perkins Act. While Labor oversees these operational tasks, the ED will still maintain its statutory responsibilities and supervision, essentially reallocating services to states and grant recipients.

“It started with Career and Technical Education, and then expanded to K–12 and eventually higher education,” McMahon explained. Her intention is to demonstrate to legislators that federal support for students can remain robust even in the absence of a standalone department.

“I’ve urged Congress to see this proof of concept through these agreements: ‘Let me show you that it functions,’” she mentioned. In her view, if Congress agrees to close the Department of Education, it could lead to improved outcomes for students, aligning with the president’s vision.

Education’s Transition and Reallocation

The ED also recently partnered with the Department of the Treasury, allowing it to assume critical operations pertaining to federal student loans and the recovery of defaulted debts. These collaborations are part of a broader effort to illustrate to Congress that federal education responsibilities and funding can be successfully managed across various agencies without interruption.

McMahon labeled this initiative her “proof of concept,” arguing it would ultimately ensure funding reaches schools and students effectively. She noted, “Some programs in the Department of Education were redundant or better managed by other agencies. We should be efficient and ensure funding aligns with student outcomes while holding teachers and administrators accountable.”

Andrew Gillen, a higher education policy research fellow at the Cato Institute, remarked that the shift of core responsibilities like student loans signifies a significant departure from past interagency agreements, which typically dealt with minor administrative tasks.

In previous discussions, McMahon expressed her belief that the Department of Education primarily functions as a channel for federal funds. “The money flows through the ED to reach states and local entities for education,” she noted.

Addressing Educational Bureaucracy

This year, the ED announced its relocation from the Lyndon B. Johnson building to make way for the Department of Energy, a move seen as a responsible option to save taxpayer money and further lessen educational bureaucracy. The Trump administration is also aiming to hand more power back to the states regarding educational decisions.

As part of these initiatives, the ED has introduced a new framework allowing states to gain more flexibility in utilizing federal education funds and reduce administrative overload, with Iowa being the first state to engage in this program.

The Department of Education encouraged states to apply for waivers, which would grant more discretion to state education officials concerning federal money and lower compliance costs.