The Trump administration doesn’t have the votes in Congress to nix the U.S. Department of Education, the Republican chairman of the U.S. House’s education committee conceded Thursday.
Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, who said he personally supports scrapping the agency, praised U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for—short of eliminating the agency—“finding creative ways” to reduce the the department’s footprint.
McMahon testified before his committee on May 14 following a year-and-a-half in which she’s touted President Donald Trump’s campaign goal of closing down the 46-year-old Education Department, cut nearly half the agency’s staff, started shifting many of its responsibilities to other federal agencies, and defended budget proposals that would eliminate dozens of federal education programs.
Republicans during the hearing praised McMahon’s managerial chops, including her handling of the troubled federal student loan application, while Democrats denounced agency staff reductions and the move of more than 110 education programs to five other federal agencies, calling the changes short-sighted and illegal.
“These are not small bureaucratic decisions,” said Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the top Democrat on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. “These are seismic changes that have already had disastrous consequences for students and their families, to say nothing of the chaos, inefficiencies, and the millions of taxpayer dollars that have been wasted.”
Scott pointed specifically to a January report from Congress’ investigative arm that showed the department spent up to $38 million last year paying staffers from its office for civil rights to remain on administrative leave while courts stymied the Trump administration’s efforts to lay them off.
He cited a lack of resolution in thousands of pending OCR cases, and a refocusing of adult education programs on “finding the next job” instead of building long-term skills.
But McMahon said the structural changes are cutting out red tape for officials at state agencies. For instance, she said, 21 states opted to submit a combined application for career and technical education programs for high schools—traditionally administered by the Education Department—and job-training funding provided under the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act and historically administered by the Labor Department.
“That’s a really big, efficient use so far of what we’ve seen in working with the Department of Labor,” McMahon said.
Scott and other Democrats also questioned the legal basis for moving programs out of the Education Department. McMahon has previously said the agreements to shift program administration are permitted under the Economy Act of 1932, which sets parameters for federal government purchasing. She reiterated that justification at the hearing.
“Several, if not all, of these bureaucracy expansion agreements are illegal or unconstitutional, and if your legal counsel is telling you that the Economy Act authorizes you to do these transfers without Congress, you should hire better lawyers,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore.
Rep. Glenn Thompson, R-Pa., brought up bipartisan concerns about the Education Department’s administration of the TRIO college access program. He asked if previous grantees would be able to continue receiving funding.
Twelve U.S. senators—six Democrats and six Republicans—recently wrote to McMahon urging the agency to revise its newly published TRIO application notices, which emphasize initiatives like workforce development and apprenticeships that differ from TRIO’s historic emphasis on college.
“I’m a big fan of TRIO,” said Thompson, arguing the programs help first-generation students navigate college transitions. He urged McMahon to visit one of the TRIO programs in his home state to see the impact firsthand.
McMahon pressed on school choice expansion price tag
Scott also asked McMahon about the overall cost of the Trump administration’s expansive school choice initiative, which will take effect next calendar year.
So far, more than 30 states are on track to jump on board with the program, which will allow taxpayers to claim dollar-for-dollar tax credits in exchange for donations to organizations that award private school scholarships or provide funding for other education expenses, such as tutoring.
In general, Republican-led states have agreed to participate in the program so far, though one large Democratic-led state, New York, recently agreed to take part and Colorado’s Democratic governor has become a major booster of the program.
Scott said he’s seen estimates that the program could cost more than $50 billion annually. He asked McMahon if she agreed with that figure.
“I would like to see where your numbers are coming from so I can evaluate them,” McMahon said. (The number came from a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think tank, Scott’s spokesman later told EdWeek. Separately, Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation has projected the cost at $25.9 billion over 10 years.)
In response to another question from Scott, McMahon confirmed that the program has no requirement that the scholarships be directed to low-income families. (Under the federal law that authorized it, students whose families earn up to 300% of their area’s median gross income are eligible for the scholarships.)
Democrats worry new loan limits could hurt aspiring teachers
Democrats also questioned McMahon’s move to limit how much money students studying to become teachers and administrators can borrow to pay for graduate school.
Starting in July, graduate students pursuing certain “professional degrees” may borrow up to $50,000 annually or $200,000 total, while students in other fields will face lower loan caps: $20,500 annually or $100,000 total for full-time degree programs.
Regulations released this month by the Education Department permit students pursuing degrees in 11 fields—including medicine, law, and clinical psychology—to borrow under the larger loans. But not education.
“You’re the secretary of the Department of Education, and you’re claiming that teaching is not a professional degree?” Bonamici said. “Do you consider educators and teachers unprofessional?”
McMahon said she does not. She hopes the graduate loan limits will help bring down the cost of an education degree.
Democrats angered over budget blueprint
Democrats also warned of dire consequences for school districts if a long-shot proposal in Trump’s most recent budget blueprint—which would generally affect the 2027-28 school year—is approved.
For the second year in a row, Trump is proposing to zero out longstanding federal education programs, including those that support educators’ professional development (currently $2.2 billion a year) and services for English learners ($890 million.)
Those programs—and 15 others—would be combined into a $2 billion education block grant—called “Make Education Great Again,” or MEGA—for states to spend largely how they please. The $2 billion fund would be $4.6 billion short of the total value of the programs it proposes to merge.
Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., said her state would lose about $265 million under the proposal.
“This block grant consolidates programs that support children experiencing homelessness, students who are returning from correctional facilities or programs that promote school desegregation,” she said.
McMahon told her that the proposal would allow governors and state education chiefs to “look at where money needs to be spent in their states” so they can use it however they think is best.
While there would be less overall funding, there would also be “less regulation,” freeing up resources typically directed to compliance with federal requirements, McMahon said.
