The Trump administration has promised to eliminate the Department of Education, shifting more responsibility back to the states. States already have significant control over education — particularly when it comes to setting standards and deciding on curriculum, but eliminating the department would have major repercussions for college students.
Stay up-to-date with the politics team. Sign up for the Teen Vogue Take
Setting aside the fact that Congress would have to approve the closure, doing so or otherwise dismantling the agency could disrupt programs and protections that millions of students and families rely on, including federal Pell grants for low-income students, other key forms of financial aid, and campus civil rights protections. Students need to recognize this as a direct attack on their future. And these threats extend beyond education. They’re part of Trump’s broader push to undermine public institutions, redirect public funding to private schools that lack accountability, and upend American civil rights and protections.
Ever since the Supreme Court handed down its 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, certain localities have resisted desegregation. Without strong oversight that federal funds and programs must be implemented legally and equitably, the limited social progress we’ve made could quickly be lost. If the administration moves forward with dismantling the Department of Education, students of all ages could face a more divided, unequal system that restricts opportunities instead of creating them.
The civil servants who staff the Department of Education oversee programs that students rely on to pay for college, like Pell Grants, student loans, and work-study programs. The department also provides direct funding to colleges that enroll a high number of low-income students, as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), tribal colleges and universities, and small schools with limited resources.
Dismantling the department would put Pell grants and other need-based aid programs at risk, which would disproportionately harm low-income students. In 2021, the Department of Education revived its enforcement office, which protects students who receive federal aid from being subjected to fraud and abuse. Without federal oversight, nefarious parties that stand to profit from the higher education industry, like the for-profit college industry, would operate with fewer consequences, leading to more students being saddled with useless degrees and high debts.
Student loan borrowers have already faced mass confusion over the last five years and eliminating the department could exacerbate existing issues. Federal student loan payments were paused to provide relief at the start of the pandemic in 2020, and legal challenges thwarted the Biden administration’s multiple efforts to provide additional debt relief. Conservatives have laid out plans to again privatize the student loan industry through legislation. Abolishing the department and moving student loans elsewhere could throw borrowers’ accounts into further disarray and cause more financial harm.
Regardless of where the student loan program ultimately lives, borrowers who count on Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) face an uncertain future. PSLF was dysfunctional for years, but recent improvements were finally moving the program closer to the way Congress intended, which is to provide debt relief to borrowers who work for a certain number of years in public service and make qualifying payments. It is unclear how the Trump administration will handle PSLF, though a plan to eliminate it was outlined in Project 2025. Eliminating PSLF would most severely impact the hopeful students seeking careers in education, health care, and government. PSLF helps students, who might otherwise be deterred because of high student loan debt, to enter these important public service job sectors, allowing these industries to diversify their ranks to include more first-generation graduates.
Beyond the massive amount of funding managed by Department of Education employees, they also play a key role in making sure students’ civil rights are respected in places of learning. The department is tasked with investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, disability status, or age, as well as sex-based discrimination and harassment under Title IX. Title IX has been heavily politicized as debates over LGBTQ+ student rights, sexual misconduct policies, and gender equity have led to shifting regulations under different administrations. The Trump administration has signed an executive order banning transgender girls and women from participating in women’s sports and has reinstated rules criticized for making it harder for students to report sexual violence.
Title VI, which protects students against discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, has been equally politicized amid debates over race-conscious admissions, campus speech, and discrimination protections. The Trump administration is expected to weaponize Title VI enforcement to suppress certain topics and activities. Indeed, they’ve already begun via executive orders that affect diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Taken together, these orders could reduce students’ protection against all forms of discrimination and harassment.
So, who stands to benefit from eliminating the Department of Education? Aside from the bad actors who have always lurked around our public education system hoping to make a profit, anyone who wants higher education to be an exclusive luxury would celebrate this regression. A college degree has long been seen as elitist because of who’s had access from the beginning: white, wealthy families. However, for some people, a degree is necessary for overcoming racist, sexist barriers in the job market. To help more students reach higher education, advocates have chipped away at barriers to access, empowered by federal funding and expertise flowing from the Department of Education. If it is abolished, states with weaker higher education systems could struggle to fill the gaps, leading to a higher risk of disparities and segregation between well-funded and underfunded institutions — and the students who attend them.
In short, getting rid of the department could harm many and benefit a few. But for an administration seemingly determined to reverse the social and economic gains made over the past 60 years, maybe that’s the point.
