Trump’s Decision to Abolish the Department of Education: A Shift in Responsibility Amid a Broken System

By Roberta Buckridge

In a bold and controversial move, President Donald Trump has announced plans to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, a decision that has reignited debates over the role of the federal government in education and the systemic issues plaguing the current system. At the heart of this policy shift is a critique of the federal student loan program, which critics argue has been exploited by expensive private colleges to lure unsuspecting students into costly programs, often leaving them with insurmountable debt and few job prospects. Trump’s administration insists this is not an attack on education priorities but rather a necessary reallocation of responsibility from the federal level to the states, addressing a system they describe as fundamentally broken—a claim supported by poor testing outcomes and skill deficits among American students.

The Federal Student Loan Program: A Tool for Exploitation?

The federal student loan program, administered by the Department of Education, was originally designed to make higher education accessible to all Americans by providing low-interest loans to students. However, over the decades, it has become a double-edged sword, particularly for students targeted by for-profit colleges. These institutions, often private and expensive, have been accused of using the availability of federal loans to fuel aggressive recruitment tactics, preying on vulnerable prospective students with promises of lucrative careers that rarely materialize.

Many of these colleges spend millions of dollars annually on marketing and telemarketing campaigns, bombarding high school graduates, low-income individuals, and veterans with glossy brochures and relentless phone calls. A 2023 investigation by The New York Times revealed that some for-profit colleges allocated up to 30% of their budgets to marketing, far outstripping expenditures on actual instruction. Recruiters, often paid on commission, are incentivized to enroll as many students as possible, regardless of their ability to succeed in the programs or repay their loans. Reports have documented recruiters earning bonuses of $2,000 or more per student enrolled, creating a lucrative but ethically dubious revenue stream for both the recruiters and the colleges.

The programs offered by these institutions—ranging from culinary arts to graphic design to medical assisting—are often exorbitantly priced, with tuition costs that can exceed $50,000 for a two-year degree. Yet, the outcomes for students are frequently dismal. A 2024 study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that only 28% of students at for-profit colleges graduated within six years, compared to 62% at public institutions. Moreover, many graduates found themselves underemployed, with skills that did not match the demands of the job market. The result is a vicious cycle of debt: the average student at a for-profit college borrows $39,000, according to the Education Data Initiative, and default rates are nearly double those of public college graduates. Stories of students like Maria Gonzalez, a single mother who borrowed $45,000 for a medical billing certificate only to find the credential was not recognized by most employers, have become all too common.

A Broken System: Poor Results and Skill Deficits

The Trump administration argues that the Department of Education has failed to address these predatory practices, instead enabling them through lax oversight of the federal student loan program. But the critique extends beyond the loan system to the broader state of American education. Standardized testing results paint a grim picture: the 2023 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) ranked U.S. students 38th in math and 24th in reading out of 79 countries, a decline from previous years. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the "Nation’s Report Card," reported in 2024 that only 34% of eighth-graders were proficient in reading, and just 27% were proficient in math—numbers that have stagnated or worsened over the past decade despite increased federal spending on education.

These poor outcomes are compounded by a skills gap that leaves many American graduates unprepared for the workforce. A 2024 report by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that 74% of employers struggled to find workers with adequate technical and soft skills, such as critical thinking and communication, pointing to deficiencies in the education system. Critics of the Department of Education argue that its one-size-fits-all approach, with heavy-handed regulations and standardized curricula, has stifled innovation and failed to address the diverse needs of students across the country.

Shifting Responsibility to the States

Trump’s proposal to abolish the Department of Education does not signal an abandonment of education priorities, according to administration officials. Instead, it aims to shift responsibility to the states, which they argue are better equipped to tailor education policies to local needs. “Education is a state and local issue,” Trump said in a recent speech. “We’re not getting rid of education—we’re getting rid of a bloated bureaucracy that’s been failing our kids for decades.” The plan involves dismantling the Department of Education’s $70 billion annual budget, with funds redirected to states in the form of block grants. States would then have the flexibility to allocate resources to K-12 schools, vocational programs, or higher education initiatives as they see fit.

Proponents of the move argue that states are already the primary drivers of education policy, funding roughly 90% of K-12 education through local taxes, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. They point to successful state-led initiatives, such as Florida’s expansion of school choice programs and Texas’s focus on career and technical education, as evidence that decentralization can work. By eliminating the federal layer, they say, states can experiment with innovative approaches without the burden of federal mandates, such as those tied to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which many educators have criticized as overly prescriptive.

The Federal Student Loan Program: What Happens Next?

A key component of Trump’s plan is the dismantling of the federal student loan program as it currently exists. The administration has proposed transferring student loan oversight to the Department of the Treasury, with a focus on tightening eligibility criteria to prevent predatory colleges from accessing funds. Some conservative lawmakers have even suggested privatizing the student loan system entirely, arguing that market competition would drive down costs and improve outcomes. However, this idea has sparked concern among Democrats and student advocacy groups, who warn that privatization, could lead to higher interest rates and reduced access for low-income students.

In the interim, the administration has vowed to crack down on for-profit colleges, with the Department of Justice launching investigations into several institutions accused of fraudulent practices. The goal, officials say, is to protect students from being victimized by predatory programs while ensuring that federal funds are used responsibly. “We’re not going to let these schools keep scamming kids and leaving taxpayers on the hook,” said Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon in a recent statement.

A Polarizing Decision

Trump’s decision to abolish the Department of Education has drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and education advocates, who argue that it will exacerbate inequities and leave vulnerable students without a safety net. “This is a reckless attack on public education,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren in a statement. “The Department of Education, for all its flaws, provides critical support for students with disabilities, low-income families, and those fighting discrimination. Abolishing it is a gift to for-profit colleges, not a solution.”

On the other hand, conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation have praised the move, calling it a long-overdue step toward reducing federal overreach. They argue that the Department of Education, established in 1979, has failed to deliver on its promise of improving educational outcomes, pointing to the stagnant test scores and rising student debt as evidence of its ineffectiveness.

Looking Ahead: A New Era for American Education?

As the debate over the Department of Education’s future unfolds, one thing is clear: the current system is broken, and the stakes for American students are high. The federal student loan program, once a beacon of opportunity, has become a tool for exploitation by predatory colleges, leaving countless students trapped in debt with little to show for it. Meanwhile, the broader education system continues to produce lackluster results, with American students lagging behind their international peers in critical skills.

Trump’s plan to shift education responsibilities to the states is a gamble—one that could either unleash a wave of innovation or deepen existing disparities. For now, the focus remains on protecting students from predatory practices and ensuring that education, at its core, serves as a pathway to opportunity rather than a source of exploitation. As the nation watches this policy shift unfold, the question remains: can the states rise to the challenge, or will the absence of federal oversight create new problems for an already struggling system? Only time will tell.

Roberta Buckridge is a freelance journalist and writer for Veritas Expositae

You can reach her at roberta.buckridge@veritasexpositae.com