The nation’s two largest teachers’ unions have taken legal action to stop President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s push to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, arguing that the president’s recent executive order telling McMahon to facilitate its closure exceeds his authority.
The separate legal challenges from the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association are the latest from the teachers’ unions as Trump has aggressively sought to whittle down the Education Department since taking office on Jan. 20.
The federal agency, already the smallest Cabinet-level department by headcount, has shrunk from a staff of more than 4,000 to roughly half of that through a mass reduction in force and repeated buyout offers. Last week, Trump directed McMahon through an executive order to “facilitate” the department’s shutdown and, seemingly off the cuff, began outlining where the department’s vast portfolio of responsibilities would move.
Trump and McMahon have said they would follow the law to close the department; only Congress has the authority to abolish a federal agency, and it would take 60 votes in the Senate for such a measure to pass. Congress would also have to approve the relocation of individual programs to different agencies.
But opponents, including the unions, say that Trump and McMahon are skirting that authority.
The American Federation of Teachers, along with six other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit on Monday asking a federal judge in Massachusetts to deem Trump’s March 20 executive order unlawful, along with the massive reduction in force from earlier this month.
The National Education Association, joined by nine other plaintiffs, also filed a complaint Monday in federal court in Maryland that asked a judge to halt McMahon from further dismantling the department.
Both argue that the department’s massive reduction in force, which eliminated entire divisions, has incapacitated the agency, preventing it from carrying out its statutorily required functions—like disbursing funding and grants and investigating civil rights violations.
McMahon and the president are overstepping Congress’ authority in hobbling the department without lawmakers’ approval, the complaints argue. Congress established the department in 1979, something the NEA had long pushed for, creating offices and positions in statute that the president does not have the power to undo.
“Dismantling the Department of Education, including by firing half of the Department, will bring … activities to a halt, harming students, educators, and school districts across the country,” the AFT complaint says.
Madi Biedermann, a department spokesperson, said in a statement that sunsetting the department will be done with Congress and state leaders. She criticized the AFT for “misleading the American public to keep their stranglehold on the American education bureaucracy” and “forcing the Department to waste resources on litigation.”
“To date, no action has been taken to move federally mandated programs out of the Department of Education. The U.S. Department of Education continues to deliver on all programs that fall under the agency’s purview, including vigilantly enforcing federal civil rights laws in schools and ensuring students with special needs and disabilities have access to critical resources,” Biedermann said.
Districts, parents say dismantling ED will trickle down
The Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, which joined AFT in its litigation, say that federal funds help them pay for personnel, keep class sizes small, and cover transportation costs. Without “timely and predictable funding,” the districts predict making “premature cuts” to staff and programs.
Meanwhile, three parents who were on the complaint alongside NEA, say that their children’s education will be affected by the department’s closure and changes in services.
One parent, who submitted a complaint about disability discrimination to the department’s anti-discrimination investigation arm, worries that the elimination of seven regional offices will inhibit investigations and the department’s ability to redress violations.
Another parent’s child receives language services to support multilingual learners, and worries that abolishing the department will deprive the student of those services.
The third parent, Mara Greengrass, a Maryland mother, worried about disruptions to services for her son provided under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which supports students with disabilities.
“I am deeply troubled by the severe cuts the Trump Administration has made to the Department of Education,” Greengrass said in a statement. “Funding for special education and the Department’s oversight have been crucial in ensuring my son receives the quality education he—and every child in this country—deserves.”
