Power Grab? Education Bureaucracy Gutted

The Trump administration has quietly begun the most serious rollback of federal education power in half a century — and the education establishment is furious.

Story Snapshot

The Education Department is shifting management of major programs to other federal agencies, shrinking its own power.
Trump officials say the goal is to break up the federal education bureaucracy and return control to states.^[9]
Roughly tens of billions in K-12 and college grants will now be run from Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, and State.^[1]^[5]
Liberal groups, unions, and Democrats claim the moves are “illegal” and will trigger court fights.^[3]^[10]

Trump’s Long‑Promised Fight With the Education Bureaucracy Arrives

President Donald Trump ran for years on a simple pledge many readers remember well: get Washington out of the classroom and put parents and local communities back in charge. That promise is now taking concrete form. The United States Department of Education has announced six formal “interagency agreements” that shift management of key programs to the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, and State.^[5]^[9] The White House order told the secretary to move toward closing the department “to the maximum extent…permitted by law.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon says these new partnerships are meant to “break up the federal education bureaucracy” and “return education to the states.”^[9] Under the plan, the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which helps oversee federal K-12 funding, will have its day‑to‑day work handled by the Department of Labor.^[5] Grants for colleges, including institution-based programs, will also be managed there, while Indian education programs shift to Interior and some child care and international programs move to Health and Human Services and State.^[5]

What Is Moving, What Stays, and How It Changes Life in the States

For parents and taxpayers, the biggest change is where federal money is processed, not whether states get it. Officials say Labor will now administer the massive Title I and related grants that support students from low‑income families and at‑risk youth, sending that money to states from a different building in Washington.^[1] About $28 billion in elementary and secondary grants and roughly $3.1 billion in college‑related operations are part of this shift in management.^[5] The Education Department will legally remain the responsible agency, but other departments will handle the daily work.^[5]

Special education, civil rights enforcement, and federal student loans are not yet part of these transfers, though the administration has openly said it is exploring those options.^[1]^[5] Earlier this term, management of career and technical education was already moved to the Department of Labor on a day‑to‑day basis.^[5] Inside the bigger picture, these steps sit alongside deep staff cuts and budget trims at the Education Department, which critics admit have already reduced the agency’s footprint. Supporters argue that this path lets the administration prove these programs can run just fine without a stand‑alone education bureaucracy.^[6]

Why the Left Is Panicking Over the Power Shift

Teachers’ unions, liberal advocacy groups, and many Democrats in Congress are sounding the alarm, not because money disappears overnight, but because Washington’s grip is loosening. A Washington advocacy group warned that moving programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, and other college‑access efforts to the Department of Labor would “undermine education and create confusion for families, students, and schools.”^[2] A union leader representing Education Department staff claims McMahon is “unlawfully dismantling” the agency despite warnings from Congress.^[3]

Democrat Senator Patty Murray blasted the interagency deals as “illegal agreements” that she says add pointless bureaucracy and “jeopardize resources and support that students and families count on.”^[3] Brookings Institution scholars, often cited by the left, stress that Congress created the Department of Education by law and that only Congress can fully eliminate it.^[10] They admit the Constitution leaves control of schooling to the states, but still defend a “limited” federal role and warn that an executive order alone cannot wipe out programs like Title I or Pell Grants.^[10] In other words, many critics are trying to lock in federal control even as they admit local control is the default in the Constitution.

The Constitutional Battle: Washington’s Role Versus State and Parent Control

Conservatives see something very different in this fight: a long‑overdue correction of a mistake made in 1979, when Congress created a separate Education Department. The Constitution never gives the federal government power over schooling, which is why many on the right argue the department is unconstitutional and that its work should be returned to states or to other agencies with more focused missions.^[8] The recent executive order states bluntly that the department’s “main functions can, and should, be returned to the States.”

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

Policy analysts note that Trump’s team is using existing tools, like the Economy Act, to contract with other agencies for services while the Education Department technically remains in charge.^[1]^[8] That makes the legal question more complex. The department can reorganize who does the day‑to‑day work while Congress debates bigger changes. Critics have not yet produced a court ruling to stop these specific transfers, but they are preparing lawsuits and pressuring appropriators to block further steps.^[3]^[10] For readers who want Washington out of the culture wars in schools — from gender ideology to race‑based “equity” schemes — this gradual wind‑down could be the start of real change, even if it happens through dull‑sounding agreements instead of one dramatic vote.