Former President Donald Trump wants the Department of Education abolished. A candidate for U.S. Senate suggested throwing the agency “in the trash can.” Another called it “one of the worst monstrosities ever created.”

Abolishing the Department of Education is hardly a new idea. In fact, Republicans have advocated for the abolition of the agency since its founding in 1979, arguing that the agency’s existence violates the Constitution (because the document does not mention education) and is a prime example of federal bloat and excesses. But in recent years the calls for its end have become louder and louder.

Trump and others say the agency has become too big and is meddling in matters that are best left to local and state authorities. The latest wave of calls is triggered by the Biden administration’s efforts to forgive student loans, the botched rollout of the federal financial aid application and the department’s overhaul of Title IX, which provided new protections for transgender students. (The new rule is on hold in 26 states due to multiple court rulings.)

“They’re trying to push gender ideology, which is just crazy, and all these other things,” Eric Hovde, the Republican Senate candidate in Wisconsin, said in a podcast in early October. “You’re trying to socially manipulate your children.”

But dismantling the department is more complicated than campaign promises suggest, and few higher education policy experts believe the department’s days are actually numbered. They point out that even Trump in his first term disagreed with abolishing the agency and instead proposed merging the departments of Education and Labor. But since 2016, the idea has gained momentum and Trump has made it a bigger issue.

This time, conservative groups, particularly Project 2025, have put forward some plans for a more detailed breakup of the department, such as moving the federal student loan programs to the Treasury Department. (The 2025 Project, led by the conservative Heritage Foundation, offers a blueprint for transforming the federal government in Trump’s second term.)

Critics of the idea say such proposals would need to spell out more precisely how the plan would work, which programs would remain, which would be eliminated and which agencies would take over the department’s responsibilities. They also question whether other federal agencies are better equipped than the Department of Education to oversee education programs. More than 4,000 people work for the agency, which has a budget of $80 billion.

Most analysts expect that any attempts to dismantle the department will result in its programs remaining in place, provided that federal laws related to higher education remain in effect. Proponents argue that nothing would change except for the proctor. Critics disagree with this view and argue that any disruption to the systems, particularly in connection with the provision of state financial aid, would have a negative impact on students.

More broadly, critics warn that dismantling the Education Department could make it more difficult for students to access federal financial aid, endanger institutions that rely on federal money and make higher education a riskier endeavor, although that is a worst-case scenario.

“You could very well end up with a system that denies college access to students with financial needs, and that would undermine the progress that has been made over the last decade in creating a system that offers more open pathways into higher education.” “Really destroy it.” “Anyone who wants it,” said Michelle Dimino, education program director at Third Way, a left-leaning think tank. “This is absolutely terrifying. I think the uncertainty alone would be a disadvantage for university entrance.”

Federal student loans

Among the many questions and logistics to be addressed in dismantling the Department of Education, one key question stands out: What to do with the $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio and the broader federal student loan program? The department issues about $100 billion in student loans and $30 billion in Pell grants annually.

Project 2025 and other proposals would require the Treasury to take over student loans. Why? Because the agency takes care of money and lending.

Mark Schneider, a nonresident senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said the current arrangement for student loans — having the Office of Federal Student Aid manage the portfolio — “makes no sense.” He recently proposed shifting student loans to the Treasury as part of a broader statement published in The 74than online news publication covering the division of the department.

“It’s clear that the department hasn’t done a good job on FSA and student loan administration, so something needs to be done,” said Schneider, who led the department’s Institute of Education Sciences from 2018 to 2024 and served as commissioner of the National Center served in education statistics during the George W. Bush administration.

But critics question why the Treasury Department is better suited to administer the student loan program than federal student aid and whether the agency has the capacity to take over the program. They also wonder whether the Treasury Department would also be tasked with enforcing federal financial aid laws or just with distributing the money.

Currently, the Office of Federal Student Aid, which employs fewer than 1,500 people, serves as the department’s operating arm. It implements accountability policies, reviews contracts with colleges that allow them access to federal financial aid, and enforces applicable laws, among several other tasks.

Schneider said he would move the FSA “by all means possible.”

It is unclear to what extent shifting federal student aid to the Treasury Department would impact students. Third Way’s Dimino said that keeping the FSA employees and all other positions would likely result in the least amount of disruption to financial aid, but still “the move alone would cause enough chaos,” she said.

She and other critics point to the 2024-25 FAFSA rollout as showing how glitches in the system can quickly handicap students. Throughout the spring, they faced delays and difficulties in determining the amount of aid to which they were entitled. Some didn’t enroll in college at all this fall.

“For students, the FAFSA snafu would look strange compared to what would happen if we dismantled the Department of Education,” said Dominique Baker, an associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware.

But Schneider, who acknowledged that his plan was high level and needed more work to work out the finer details, said moving federal student aid to the Treasury Department should not change anything for students and make the system “better and simpler.” could.

“If I thought students and institutions would be worse off, I wouldn’t say it,” he said.

Likewise, Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Education Freedom at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, didn’t expect shifting programs like student loans to have much of an impact on students and institutions, especially if Congress kept everything else in place.

“There would probably be some slight disruption or problems in transitioning from one to the other, although I don’t think it needs to be particularly major and could be completely seamless,” he said.

McCluskey is among the conservatives who believe that the Department of Education never should have existed and should not exist in the future because Congress never had the power to create the department in the first place. He wants the authority to be abolished in order to solve the constitutional problems alone.

But he argues that the department has also failed pragmatically. “I don’t think there’s good evidence that the Department of Education has had a net benefit,” he said.

“In higher education,” he said, “the federal government’s primary responsibility is to … ensure college affordability, and I don’t think there’s any evidence that the department has made college more affordable.” I think , there is evidence that the programs offered there make college less affordable.”

But even McCluskey, who has advocated for years to abolish the agency, doesn’t believe the department will be in jeopardy if Trump wins.

“I certainly don’t see any indication that there is a very strong public initiative to eliminate the Department of Education,” he said. “If there is another Trump administration, I suspect there will be more talk about eliminating some programs and relocating some programs (instead of directly trying to get rid of the Department of Education.”

Disturbances predicted

But if Republicans move forward with abolishing the department and shifting programs to other agencies, Chris Marsicano, an associate professor of education at Davidson College, would expect some disruption to colleges and universities.

Transferring programs or responsibilities to other agencies could still change how they are implemented, depending on the agencies’ goals, he said. For example, if the Department of Labor were to assume responsibility for higher education, that agency could focus more on how colleges support the workforce and provide grants accordingly.

But eliminating the Education Department would leave students, educators, schools and colleges without an advocate in the president’s Cabinet, and that “could undermine an important function of government,” he said.

“Whether at the local, state or federal level, education is an important part of government,” he said. “The vast majority of children in this country are educated in public schools, and the vast majority of college students attend public universities and community colleges.”

Marsicano repeatedly stressed that “that’s not going to happen.”

“Politically it’s an easy victory,” he said. “People theoretically like student loans, but hate student debt. People like funding for children, but they hate the idea of ​​the federal government telling a local school district what should and shouldn’t be important. So it’s a low-stakes, reasonably high-benefit attack on the federal government.”

But would Republicans have to abolish the Department of Education entirely to limit the federal role in higher education? Baker doesn’t think so.

Finally, she asked, what’s to stop the Secretary of Education, with Trump’s approval, from deciding not to enforce the Higher Education Act at all? (The Higher Education Act of 1965 governs federal student aid programs and the federal role in postsecondary education.)

“No one can know the exact methods a future Trump administration would use for higher education policy,” Baker said. “No one should assume that precedent will prevail and that laws must be followed.”