Republicans Divided Over Trump Plan to Reassign Education Department Duties

The Trump administration has announced plans to transfer major responsibilities from the U.S. Department of Education to other federal agencies, reassigning administration of tens of billions of dollars in K‑12 and higher education funding. The proposal relies on a series of interagency agreements that would shift program management to departments such as Labor, State, Health and Human Services, and Interior.

Republicans broadly sympathetic to the president’s long‑standing goal of shrinking the federal education apparatus expressed mixed reactions, with some supporting the move as a step toward reducing bureaucracy and others warning it risks disrupting essential services. Several GOP lawmakers, state education leaders and former Education Department attorneys said the plan raises practical, legal and oversight concerns.

GOP concerns and endorsements

Rep. Kevin Kiley (R‑Calif.) said some reorganization could make sense if functions are carried out more efficiently and better aligned with other agencies’ missions, but cautioned that many Education Department services must continue without interruption — from charter school grants to supports for students with special needs. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R‑Pa.) pledged to defend critical programs and warned that altering them without transparency or congressional oversight would put students at risk.

House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg (R‑Mich.) praised the proposal as «putting students before bureaucracy,» while Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R‑La.) said he received assurances that services would remain intact. Still, key appropriations lawmakers said permanently eliminating or dismantling the department would require congressional action.

Implementation challenges

Agency officials did not immediately specify how many Education Department employees would need to be detailed to other departments or how grant processing and award functions would be handled once authority is dispersed. Officials acknowledge the transition could take months and must be communicated clearly to states, school districts and colleges that depend on these funds.

«Now the work begins,» Education Department official Lindsey Burke said, describing the transfers as an initial step — «the engagement of the marriage.»

Education Secretary Linda McMahon told department staff the agreements are temporary and could be made permanent only through Congress if they prove successful. Administration officials described the effort as a «proof of concept» intended to show lawmakers how responsibilities might be reassigned.

Legal, coordination and service continuity risks

Opponents say the reassignments could create new layers of bureaucracy rather than reduce them. Former Education Department attorney Josie Eskow Skinner warned the changes could expand federal involvement and force states to navigate potentially conflicting or duplicative demands from multiple agencies without a central point of coordination or consistent technical assistance.

Jeanne Allen, CEO of the Center for Education Reform, cautioned the transition «won’t be seamless» and urged new lead agencies to communicate clearly with states, communities and parents about funding flexibility and compliance rules. The Council of Chief State School Officers encouraged close consultation with state leaders to minimize disruption and protect the flow of congressionally approved funding.

Some Democrats and education advocates have signaled they may challenge the plan through litigation or the appropriations process. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said opponents will press Congress and the courts to stop efforts that bypass legislative authority.

What’s next

Supporters argue the move could demonstrate that a unified federal education agency is not necessary; critics say a flawed transition could jeopardize popular programs and harm the students they serve. Lawmakers, state officials and education experts are pressing for clear timelines, staffing plans, guarantees of uninterrupted services and explicit congressional oversight before any transfers proceed.