How presidents have misused the Dept of Education — and why we should close it

In the wake of President Trump’s executive order aimed at dismantling the US Department of Education, many have noted the obvious benefits of closing — or at least shrinking — this major federal agency, whose administrative budget exceeds an estimated $3 billion and is viewed as a symbol of Washington bloat and overreach.

If carried out, the move will undoubtedly save taxpayers’ money. It will also mark a shift in control over education back to its rightful home — states and local jurisdictions. But most of all, it will disarm presidents and federal bureaucrats of their favorite tool for imposing sweeping, heavy-handed policies onto classrooms and schools.

This should excite parents across the political spectrum. History shows that administrations — Democratic and Republican alike — struggle to resist the temptation to encroach on education. In the end, no one wins, as today’s favored (or disfavored) policies become tomorrow’s rewritten rules under the next president.

Just last year, the department under former President Joe Biden issued a highly controversial rule expanding Title IX’s definition of sex discrimination to include gender identity and sexual orientation. Wake County Board of Education member Cheryl Caufield wrote on the repercussions to her district, explaining that girls could be forced share showers, bathrooms, and lockers with biological males under a policy it adopted to comply with the new rule.

As many know, it was struck down in federal court this January. The judge deemed it “vague and overbroad” and found that the rule violated the First Amendment by compelling speech relating to students’ gender identity and pronouns, among other issues.

This was not the first unconstitutional action involving Biden’s Department of Education. In 2022, his administration deployed a wealth-transfer scheme framed as student loan relief, which sought to forgive up to $20,000 in student loans for certain borrowers, leaving taxpayers to make up the estimated $400 billion difference. The plan — carried out by then-education Secretary Miguel Cardona — not only relied on questionable emergency powers tied to COVID-19, but it also exceeded the department’s legitimate authority.

The US Supreme Court ruled it unlawful in a 6-3 decision the following year. But that didn’t stop Biden or his department from pursuing legally shaky workarounds, such as the SAVE plan announced that summer, or continuing the COVID-related payment pause until October 2023.

Ironically, during President Donald Trump’s first term, many viewed his education department’s actions on student loans as overreaching — though for different reasons. In 2018, Secretary Betsy DeVos issued guidance arguing that federal law preempted state regulations on companies servicing federal student loans. The move faced several legal challenges and was ultimately reversed by the Biden administration.

His predecessor encroached on education in ways more audacious and unprecedented. Under President Barack Obama, the education department’s Office for Civil Rights sent a Dear Colleague Letter in 2014 coercing school districts to adopt federally preferred discipline practices aimed at reducing racial disparities in student suspensions. Most alarming was the declaration that neutral policies, even those that don’t discriminate on their face, could be viewed as unlawful if they result in disparate outcomes (the so-called “disparate impact” standard).

The department launched investigations against local districts across the US and directly pressured around 400 of them into changing their policies, impacting roughly 10 million students, according to the Manhattan Institute. As these policies softened, and with administrators having fewer disciplinary options, incidents of campus crime and student violence rose in the years that followed. In North Carolina, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) saw a spike in gun and drug confiscations and assaults on staff in the 2015-16 school year. One CMS employee candidly told the Charlotte Observer that some staff “were afraid of students,” describing the behavioral issues as real and underreported.

Finally, let us not forget the sweeping education changes adopted under President George W. Bush. While his signature legislation, “No Child Left Behind,” was passed by Congress, it delegated significant authority to the education department, particularly related to the standards districts had to meet to keep their federal funding. It also produced a costly and largely ineffective reading initiative that saw officials steering grant funds to preferred publishers and programs, exerting undue influence over states and districts.

Will eliminating the department free our schools from Washington’s grip? Not entirely — at least not as long as federal dollars are pouring into states. But it will deprive presidents and federal bureaucrats of their preferred vehicle for cramming top-down mandates onto classrooms and students. So long as it’s there, the record shows they can’t resist it. That, more than anything else, should compel us to shut it down.