The announcement that the Department of Education (DOE) will lay off another 1,300 employees, reducing the staff to half its previous size of around 4,100, is more than a restructuring—it’s a direct assault an efforts to achieve reasonably equitable American education, en route to dreams of abolishing the DOE altogether. At the heart of this debate is not just hostility to social justice but an even more fundamental question: Does America want to be a unified country or merely a confederation of states with vastly different rules, standards, and rights?
In most contexts throughout history, the political Right everywhere has aligned itself with patriotism, emphasizing national unity and strength. Yet in the United States, conservatives often seem to push in the opposite direction, favoring so-called “states’ rights” over national cohesion. The reason is that many conservatives today are actually reactionaries who view states’ rights as a tool to erode protections that the federal government has sought to ensure.
This problem dates back to the justification for slavery, when states’ rights were invoked to perpetuate the brutal institution. The same logic has been useful for enabling abortion bans after the elimination of Roe v. Wade—and potentially also for dismantling federal oversight in civil rights, economic policies, and now, education. All would come under the guise of respect for local norms.
It’s worth noting that dismantling the DOE does not mean what it would in many other countries, where national ministries exert sweeping control over schools, curricula, and teaching standards. American education has always been primarily a state and local responsibility. The DOE—which last year had a relatively modest budget of around $250 billion—is there not to dictate what students learn but to enforce civil rights protections, distribute federal funding to high-need schools, regulate student loans, and ensure accountability for educational institutions—all functions that create a fairer, more integrated, and more economically mobile society.
And that, of course, is precisely why it’s in MAGA’s crosshairs. These functions are deemed “woke” in an era when anything that seeks to level the playing field is suspect. Just as undeniable progressive overreach fueled a backlash and helped get Trump elected, the war on “woke” is now veering into territory far worse than the thing it is supposedly fighting—undermining national cohesion, entrenching inequality, and harming millions of students in the process.
The DOE was formally established in 1979 under Jimmy Carter, driven by the calculation that without strong federal oversight, students in underprivileged communities would face deeper inequalities, and the progress made in integrating schools, protecting students with disabilities, and ensuring fair funding may erode.
It played an important role in desegregation and ensuring students with disabilities receive proper accommodations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Without adequate staff to enforce these laws, students could face greater obstacles in reporting and rectifying discrimination. Public schools already struggle with implementing fair discipline policies; studies show that Black students and students with disabilities are disproportionately suspended, and federal efforts ensure such inequities are addressed and marginalized students have recourse.
Beyond civil rights enforcement, the DOE oversees the administration of federal student aid, including Pell Grants and student loans, providing access to higher education for millions. The department’s ability to effectively manage the $1.7 trillion in outstanding student loan debt will be severely compromised without sufficient staff, leading to processing delays, mismanagement of funds, and reduced support for borrowers navigating repayment options.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Cutting the DOE also weakens federal oversight of predatory for-profit colleges, which have a history of saddling students with debt while providing subpar education (Trump famously lent his brand to one of these). Holding such institutions accountable is critical to ensuring students don’t fall victim to deceptions of the sort that Trump University was charged with.
While states and local governments fund most public education, federal funding is essential for high-need schools, particularly those serving low-income students, rural areas, and special education programs. Programs like Title I funding (which supports low-income school districts) and IDEA grants ensure equitable access to education. Without them, wealthier states and districts thrive while poorer ones suffer—undermining decades of bipartisan efforts to reduce the education gap and standards nationwide.
A report by my hometown Philadelphia Inquirer analyzed the impact on the Philadelphia metro area, a useful case study. It found schools and universities could face significant financial and operational challenges. Local officials fear the cuts could jeopardize critical programs as well as the Office for Civil Rights, which handles discrimination cases, and Title I funding. In Montgomery County alone, schools stand to lose $135 million in federal aid, including $28 million for students with disabilities and $30 million in Pell grants for community college students. The Philadelphia School District, which relies on federal funds for about 10 percent of its budget, has received no clarity on potential cuts, while Upper Darby is considering school closures due to financial uncertainty. Project that all over the country, and a desperate picture emerges.
To state what should be obvious but to some is apparently not, education is the backbone of economic growth. Countries that prioritize education—like Finland, Singapore, and South Korea—have strong national-level involvement in education policy and consistently outperform the U.S. in math, science, and literacy rankings. At a time when global competition in technology and innovation is fierce, weakening the DOE means the U.S. risks falling behind in STEM education, workforce development, and research capabilities. The Trump administration claims these cuts will reduce bureaucracy, but the reality is they will hinder the country’s ability to prepare students for 21st-century jobs and maintain America’s leadership in science and industry.
Beyond the benefits of national standards and oversight, even if we agree to turn over authority to the states, the fact is that many states lack the resources, expertise, or willingness to enforce civil rights protections and fund education equitably.
The bottom line is that in every facet of American life, federal intervention has historically been necessary to correct injustices, from desegregation in the South to mandating accommodations for students with disabilities. So equality is the issue at hand—and Trumpland basically hates efforts to engineer it. There are racist overtones to its actions, as well as a commitment to class rigidity and constraining the prospects of mobility.
While other developed nations centralize education to ensure national success, the U.S. risks splintering into a patchwork of vastly unequal systems. A fragmented system with 50 different state policies will create greater inequalities, with education quality determined by zip code and state politics.
So the true question here is whether America aspires to be a strong, unified country or merely a fragmented confederation that doesn’t stand for anything in particular and will cease to inspire the world. If this continues, on education and much else also, the consequences would be felt for generations.
Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at danperry.substack.com.
The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.