White House moves major K–12 functions out of the Department of Education
The White House announced a sweeping reorganization that shifts core K–12 responsibilities away from the U.S. Department of Education and into other federal agencies, a move that critics say may violate federal law and will significantly reshape how federal education dollars are administered.
Under an interagency agreement, the Department of Labor will "co‑manage" the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and administer roughly $28 billion in grant funding. The Interior Department will assume responsibility for programs serving Native American students. Other changes already outlined include moving the Office of Postsecondary Education to Labor and transferring a campus‑based child care program to the Department of Health and Human Services. Decisions remain pending on whether offices that oversee civil rights, special education, and student loan administration will be moved.
Administration rationale
Administration officials framed the changes as implementing a March executive order directing the dismantling or downsizing of the Department of Education. A senior department official said states should still expect what they called "concierge‑level service," arguing that shifting program management will put more dollars directly into classrooms and give states greater control over how funds are used.
"At the end of the day, it means more dollars to the classroom, to the grantees, that does not get siphoned off through bureaucracy," the official said on a background call. "We think that this really does give states more power to determine how those dollars are spent and to best manage them."
Concerns from advocates, states and legal experts
The announcement prompted visible dismay among education advocates on an online White House presentation, and some participants reacted with thumbs‑down and sad‑face emojis. Rebecca Sibilia, executive director of the think tank EdFund, expressed alarm about the fate of the Institute of Education Sciences, the department's research arm. Earlier this year the institute experienced roughly $900 million in grant cancellations and major staff reductions.
"If there is any fundamental role for the government to play, it is the collection and reporting of data," Sibilia said. "They have spread these programs so far and wide it will be difficult to put Humpty Dumpty back together again."
Several state education chiefs also raised objections. Rhode Island Education Commissioner Angélica Infante Green called the move "the latest in a long pattern of sudden, chaotic decisions at the federal level that have created widespread anxiety and confusion." California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond warned it will be "clearly less efficient for state departments of education and local school districts to work with four different federal agencies instead of one." The Council of Chief State School Officers requested assurances that deadlines will be met and funding will flow without interruption to support students.
Legal experts dispute the administration's authority to make these transfers. The department cites the Economy Act of 1933 and other interagency tools as legal support for contracting functions to other agencies. But Emily Merolli, a partner at the Sligo Law Group and a former member of the Education Department’s general counsel’s office, argued the approach "is not legally supportable."
"The law absolutely does not grant the secretary the authority to just transfer those actual functions — let alone entire offices — to another agency," Merolli said. "Dressing this up as a 'co‑management' or 'partnership' agreement doesn’t make it legal."
Political and policy context
The administration has previously transferred career and technical education, adult education, and family literacy programs to Labor. Officials are exploring whether Health and Human Services could take on special education functions and have discussed selling the department’s $1.77 trillion student loan portfolio to private firms — a proposal whose legality and feasibility remain uncertain.
Public opinion is mixed. Multiple surveys indicate broad opposition to eliminating or severely shrinking the department, while at least one poll from a school choice group reported more favorable responses when respondents were told that K–12 funding such as Title I would be preserved. Some conservatives favor phasing out programs like Title I and redirecting roughly $18 billion a year to states for private school choice; others dismiss the moves as largely symbolic organizational reshuffling that a future administration could reverse.
Policy researchers note that Title I has produced measurable benefits in some settings: a 2019 study found that when Title I funds were used to reduce class sizes, Black students in high‑poverty, high‑minority schools made greater reading gains; when used for teacher training, Black and Latino students made larger math gains. Still, achievement gaps persist and in many cases remain large.
Observers say the administration's plans will face litigation and political pushback, and the ultimate scope and durability of the changes will likely depend on Congress and future elections.
Key players quoted
- Rebecca Sibilia, executive director, EdFund
- Emily Merolli, partner, Sligo Law Group
- Angélica Infante Green, Rhode Island Education Commissioner
- Tony Thurmond, California State Superintendent
- Ray Domanico, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
- Michael Petrilli, president, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
