President Donald Trump continues to follow through on his campaign pledges. Even before he was re-elected, he made it clear that the United States Department of Education (DE) had to go. For Trump, this is a double priority. First, he believes the DE enforces an ideology that supports programs aligned with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). In his view, this not only counters his own beliefs it constitutes federal overreach. He and his supporters believe that education policy should be left to the states. Second, he aims to slash federal spending. Trump views many DE initiatives as costly and misaligned with his core values. He has repeatedly called for the closing of the Department of Education.

To achieve this goal, Trump developed the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), headed by Elon Musk. The DOGE mandate is to streamline agencies. Their first tactic was to ask for “voluntary” resignations. Resign now for a severance package or remain with no incentive. This is a common approach in corporate takeovers. However, few private corporations need to grapple with union and government contracts that prohibit these actions. Musk’s strategy is to press forward, anticipating that Trump’s presidential powers will protect DOGE from legal repercussions.

This has created an unprecedented situation. Legal challenges and emerging court rulings may soon reshape DOGE’s efforts, especially given the flurry of protests and headlines. If courts ultimately side with DOGE, tens—if not hundreds—of thousands of government workers could be impacted.

For the moment, these staff cuts appear to meet Trump’s political goal of dismantling DEI. But there is also his financial objective of budget reductions. Some supporters believe the DE budget consists mainly of inflated salaries supporting DEI. In truth, all DE salaries combined account for about half of one percent of the entire departmental budget. If every single employee were let go, the budget would only drop from 100% to roughly 99%. The remaining budget is funneled to states or individual beneficiaries. Let’s look at the details.

Student Loans: As of 2024, the Department of Education had approved $126 billion in new student loans. Currently, one in four Americans under 40 is still paying off an average of $25,000 in student debt. Graduate students carry an average debt of $50,000. Altogether, the DE manages a staggering $1.7 trillion in student loan obligations.

If the DE is dismantled, Trump plans to transfer loan administration to the Small Business Administration (SBA). However, the SBA only manages $12 billion in loans. It would have to scale up more than a hundredfold to handle $1.7 trillion in debt. Unless the SBA hires significantly more staff, this transfer could stall. Moreover, the SBA of today has substantially different loan criteria from the DE’s. It would not happily provide a loan to young applicants with little or no credit history.

Could the transition from DE to SBA create minor changes in the loan approval process? Very likely. And those small changes could dramatically reduce the availability of student loans. Also, consider how the SBA would address failed loans. Between 2016 and 2020, 10–11.5% of loans defaulted. That level of failed loans translates into hundreds of billions of dollars in uncollected debt. Could DOGE recommend reducing loans for the poorest students? Or limiting loans for “desirable” professions (higher pay, in-demand business professions).

K–12 School Funding: Last year, the DE distributed $50 billion to states for K–12 education. This allowed poorer states to fund services that wealthier states easily cover. The five states that benefit most—Alaska, North Dakota, Montana, Kentucky, and South Dakota—all voted for Trump. Yet these states may face unpleasant surprises if federal funding is withdrawn.

Trump has consistently argued that the federal government should refrain from influencing education policy, leaving it to the states. If that principle takes hold, will states also have to pay for their own policies? Without federal aid, states can enjoy “liberation” from federal rules. But states need to confront the possibility of higher taxes or significant program cuts—likely before the upcoming school year.

Everything Else: Beyond student loans and K–12 grants, another $60 billion funds various DE programs. This includes the Office for Civil Rights, which many expect to be eliminated. Also at risk is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). However, it is unclear whether the White House supports or opposes continued funding for disabled students. Funding for affordable housing and other assistance programs might also be on the chopping block.

Then there is Title I, which supports students who perform below the expected level. While Trump might not intentionally target children struggling in the classroom, Title I disproportionately benefits low-income areas that often include minority populations. The administration could label this a DEI initiative and eliminate it in an effort to streamline the budget.

What’s Next? This question extends beyond the Department of Education. Many other government agencies may be placed under DOGE’s lens as Trump seeks large-scale spending cuts. Yet simply trimming staff rarely yields significant savings in many departments.

The bulk of federal expenditures lie in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Defense (DOD), and Veterans’ Services. However, the DOD and Veterans’ Services are HUGE employers. Together they employ nearly four million workers, most of which are soldiers. That dwarfs the total workforce of all other government agencies combined. Will DOGE recommend large-scale demobilization and terminations? Or will the Trump administration cut defense contracts, pensions, and healthcare benefits?

These possibilities have far-reaching consequences not just for education but for virtually every aspect of federal operations. How the administration proceeds remains to be seen—and the nation will likely watch, debate, and protest every step of the way.

What do you think about these reforms?