As a leading voice in U.S. federal education policy, Donald Gainsborough, the head of Government Curated, brings unparalleled insight into the complex world of legislative processes and policy reform. With a career dedicated to navigating the intricacies of government operations, Donald is uniquely positioned to shed light on the current challenges surrounding President Trump’s push to close the Education Department. In this interview, we explore the motivations behind this controversial campaign promise, the administrative and legal steps taken so far, the significant congressional obstacles in both the Senate and House, and the contentious debates over funding that could shape the future of education policy in America.
Can you walk us through the reasons behind President Trump’s campaign promise to close the Education Department?
Certainly. During his campaign, Trump framed the Education Department as an overreaching federal entity that stifled local control over schools. He often criticized it for imposing burdensome regulations and curricula that he believed didn’t align with the needs of individual communities. His argument was that education should be managed closer to home—by states, districts, and parents—rather than by a centralized bureaucracy in Washington. He saw the department as a symbol of federal overreach, and shutting it down became a rallying cry for those who felt the government was too involved in local education decisions.
How did Trump propose to handle education responsibilities if the department were to be eliminated?
Trump’s vision was to decentralize education governance. He talked about transferring key functions to state governments or other federal agencies like the Department of Labor, especially for programs tied to workforce development. The idea was to strip away what he saw as unnecessary federal oversight and let states tailor education policies to their specific needs. He also emphasized empowering parents through mechanisms like school choice, suggesting that market-driven solutions could replace federal programs.
What concrete actions has the Trump administration taken to move toward closing the department?
The administration has been active on this front since day one. In March, Trump signed a sweeping executive order directing the Education Secretary to explore ways to facilitate the department’s closure within legal limits. This included plans to downsize operations significantly. Then, in July, a Supreme Court ruling gave a temporary green light to mass layoffs within the department, which was a major step toward reducing its footprint. Additionally, there’s been a push to transfer certain services—particularly those related to civil rights enforcement and workforce programs—to other agencies to shrink the department’s scope.
How has Congress responded to these efforts, particularly in the Senate where the path seems especially challenging?
Congress, especially the Senate, has been a tough nut to crack for the administration. In the Senate, you need 60 votes to advance most legislation, and with Republicans holding only 53 seats, getting enough bipartisan support—or even full party unity—is a steep climb. Several Republican senators have introduced bills to abolish the department, but there’s hesitation even among some conservatives who worry about the practical fallout of such a drastic move. The Senate’s structure and rules make it a natural roadblock for controversial reforms like this.
Turning to the House, what’s the status of the bills aimed at eliminating the department?
In the House, there’s more visible support for Trump’s agenda, with several Republican representatives introducing bills to shutter the department. However, none of these proposals have moved forward to a vote in the House Committee on Education and Workforce. The committee chair has expressed a desire to eventually dismantle the agency but emphasized a cautious approach—looking at how to “right-size” it rather than abolish it outright. This suggests a focus on scaling back rather than a full elimination, at least for now, due to practical and political considerations.
Funding seems to be another battleground. How has Congress reacted to the administration’s proposed cuts to the Education Department’s budget?
Funding has indeed become a flashpoint. The Senate Appropriations Committee, in a bipartisan move, rejected most of Trump’s proposed cuts for fiscal year 2026, maintaining funding levels close to the current $79 billion. They’ve also included provisions to ensure the department has adequate staffing and can’t easily transfer programs elsewhere. The House, on the other hand, passed a proposal more aligned with Trump’s vision, slashing funding to $67 billion and cutting programs like Title I grants for low-income schools. However, both chambers refused to touch Pell Grant maximum awards, showing there’s a line even some Republicans won’t cross when it comes to student aid.
What do these funding disagreements tell us about the broader challenges of reforming education policy in Congress?
They highlight just how divided Congress is on the role of federal involvement in education. The Senate’s bipartisan stance shows a belief that the department still serves a critical function, especially in protecting equity through programs like Title I and Pell Grants. The House’s approach reflects a stronger ideological alignment with Trump’s push for smaller government, but even there, you see limits to how far they’re willing to go. These disagreements underscore a fundamental tension: balancing local control with the need for federal oversight to ensure fairness and access across diverse communities. Negotiating a final budget will likely be a long and contentious process.
What’s your forecast for the future of the Education Department given these ongoing battles?
I think complete closure remains a long shot in the near term. The congressional hurdles—especially in the Senate—are formidable, and even within the Republican party, there’s no consensus on how far to push this agenda. We’re more likely to see incremental changes—continued downsizing, program transfers, and budget trimming—rather than a full shutdown. The legal victories, like the Supreme Court ruling, give the administration some leverage to reshape the department administratively, but without congressional action, the agency will persist in some form. The bigger question is how these battles will influence public trust in federal education policy over the long haul.
