The Perils of Handing Off the Education Department’s Job to Other Regulators

Following the blueprint laid out by Project 2025, President Donald Trump has called for dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. President Trump cannot eliminate the Department on his own, as it is an agency authorized by Congress, so dismantling it would require changes to numerous laws. Still, the elimination of the Department would have far-reaching implications for students and families. Given the Department’s extensive role in higher education, students, colleges and universities, and taxpayers would all be harmed by eliminating the Department. Here are six proposals from Project 2025 to shut down the Education Department (ED)—and why they would be harmful to students.

Project 2025 calls for shutting down the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) and spinning it off into a new government agency that would “manage the loan portfolio, handle borrower relations, administer loan applications and disbursements, monitor institutional participation and accountability issues, and issue regulations.”

This isn’t a novel idea, but it’s an unnecessary one. FSA is already independent from the Department by design. The education secretary cannot fire the chief operating officer, the head of FSA, only the president can. Project 2025's proposal would actually make government operations much less efficient. The shift would not only fragment established responsibilities of handling the financial aid system, but also threatens to erode the accountability that have made FSA a critical component in facilitating access to higher education for millions of students.

FSA was created as an independent organization—the first one established by the U.S. government—to centralize and streamline the management of federal student aid programs. Recognizing that federal student aid is a critical investment in the nation's future, FSA was established to ensure that programs like Pell Grants and federal student loans operate efficiently and transparently. By emphasizing measurable outcomes and data-driven decision-making, FSA aims to deliver timely and effective financial support to students, while continuously monitoring and enhancing its performance. This focus on accountability not only helps maximize the impact of federal funds but also ensures that aid reaches students in need, fostering improved access to higher education and promoting long-term success. Its independence from the Department is also key.

Project 2025 proposes returning student lending to private lenders with government backing, which would reverse the substantial financial savings made with the change to the Direct Lending program over a decade ago. This shift would not only increase taxpayer costs but also put borrowers at risk. They would likely face higher interest rates and have fewer repayment options and less protection from predatory lending practices, if they can borrow at all. If Congress would decline to approve this change, Project 2025 suggests transferring federal student loans to the Department of the Treasury, which would then manage collections and defaults while shifting oversight to another agency. The Treasury, however, is structured to manage broad financial policies, not the specialized needs of student loan servicing. Unlike typical federal debts, student loans are closely tied to individual educational outcomes, career paths, and economic mobility.

Many borrowers struggle to repay their loans or default because they attended underperforming institutions or fell victim to predatory practices that resulted in a poor education and limited career prospects. Effectively managing these loans requires a deep understanding of the American higher education system. Absent this expertise, the Treasury might implement rigid collection practices that would worsen borrower hardships and fail to address the root causes of default. Furthermore, bifurcating loan servicing and institutional oversight across two separate agencies would create a fragmented system, weakening accountability and hindering efforts to keep colleges honest and address underlying financial issues like poor institutional performance.

Federal oversight of colleges is part of the federal program integrity triad, which is composed of accrediting agencies, states, and the federal government. They work together to ensure the quality of postsecondary institutions and protect federal student aid investments. The Department of Education approves institutions for participation in federal financial aid programs and recognizes accreditors to ensure institutions meet specific standards for receiving federal aid. States regulate institutions within their borders, ensuring compliance with laws and authorizing institutions to operate. Accrediting agencies, independent and non-governmental, assess institutional quality, including academic rigor, faculty qualifications, and student outcomes. They serve as "gatekeepers" to federal aid, as institutions must be accredited by a recognized agency to participate in federal aid programs.

These distinct roles recognize the different strengths of each side of the triangle, and each plays an important role in overseeing institutions. However, Trump’s blueprint for dismantling the Department would undermine the triad as it calls for “attacking the accreditation cartel.” Project 2025 calls for removing the Department’s recognition of agencies for gatekeeping purposes and instead turn to states to recognize accrediting agencies or be their own accreditor. This plan would weaken the triad and further burden states, which lack the capacity to take on this role, don’t have the expertise to either oversee or become an accreditor , and have a mixed record on oversight themselves.

Accreditation is not merely a bureaucratic formality. Accreditors assess everything from faculty qualifications and curriculum standards to student outcomes and institutional resources. This process requires a deep understanding of higher education and the complexities of evaluating academic programs.

States, however, are not equipped to serve this role. While some states have education departments or higher education commissions, these entities are typically more focused on policy implementation and oversight of the state’s public institutions rather than the deep academic assessments necessary for accreditation. States often lack the staff and expertise, to review institutions at the level required to assess academic quality. Furthermore, there is wide variation in oversight by states. This shift would dilute the objectivity and thoroughness of the accreditation process, potentially allowing institutions to bypass rigorous standards to the detriment of students.

While proponents argue that state oversight addresses local needs, many states have consistently under-invested in monitoring institutions of higher education. States have even pushed back when the federal government has encouraged them to take a stronger oversight role. Many states have failed to effectively regulate institutions, particularly for-profit ones, that engage in predatory practices. A case in point is California, which historically failed to effectively regulate the for-profit sector despite numerous instances of egregious practices that negatively impact students. Accreditation is certainly ripe for reform and oversight of accreditors, as well as accreditors’ oversight of colleges, needs to be strengthened, but this proposal would likely shift the oversight in the wrong direction.

Currently, the Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) provides grant provides grants aimed at improving access to higher education, supporting institutional development, enhancing student success, and promoting educational equity, with key programs including GEAR UP, TRIO, and Title III and V grants for Minority-Serving Institutions. Project 2025’s blueprint to abolish the Department would end many of these important programs, narrowing institutional funding to HBCUs and tribally controlled colleges. The blueprint calls for moving any remaining programs, along with the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), to the Department of Labor which would significantly undermine the federal government’s ability to support higher education. The OPE and OCTAE programs, including GEAR UP, are essential for fostering college access, persistence, and success, particularly for students from low-income and underserved communities. GEAR UP provides critical support by preparing students for postsecondary education, helping to close achievement gaps, and increasing college enrollment rates. Removing such programs from the Department of Education—the agency best equipped to oversee higher education—creates unnecessary fragmentation and disrupts the integrated approach to supporting students through both K-12 and postsecondary education.

Transferring these programs to the Department of Labor further complicates the issue, as it would disassociate education-focused initiatives from the context of academic institutions and the specific needs of students pursuing higher education. The Department of Education is uniquely positioned to ensure that grant programs align with educational goals, such as improving graduation rates or expanding opportunities for marginalized groups. Moving these programs to the Department of Labor, which primarily focuses on workforce development, would dilute their effectiveness by placing them in an agency that lacks the nuanced understanding of higher education policies and student development, as well as view the grants in the context of the oversight work the Department does. Furthermore, the loss of such grant programs would disproportionately harm students who rely on federal support to access and succeed in higher education, potentially reversing years of progress in improving college access and equity.

Project 2025's blueprint would move the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to the Department of Commerce's Census Bureau, along with shifting higher education data collection efforts to the Department of Labor. This overlooks the critical connections among education statistics, institutional oversight, and policy implementation. NCES operates within the Department of Education, where it collects, analyzes, and distributes data that directly informs educational policy and institutional performance. Separating this function from the Department of Education would break the vital link between education data and the agency responsible for overseeing educational institutions and programs. This disconnect could lead to confusion for institutions as well as fragmented data reporting and analysis, reducing the ability to accurately assess the effectiveness of federal education policies, including those related to institutional accountability.

Similarly, moving higher education data collection efforts to the Department of Labor would further complicate government operations.The Department of Labor’s focus is on workforce development, employment, and labor market trends, which, while important, is not inherently aligned with the specific needs of higher education data collection. Higher education data requires a nuanced understanding of institutional quality, student demographics, and academic outcomes—elements that are closely tied to educational policy and oversight. Placing these efforts under the Department of Labor risks losing the context necessary to understand the intersection between education and employment. Furthermore, scattering these data across different agencies puts a barrier on transparency for students, taxpayers, policymakers and researchers. The lack of integration could hinder effective decision-making and policy design, ultimately undermining efforts to improve access to and quality of higher education.

The Education Department is critical to ensuring equity in higher education, and helps enforce laws like Title IX and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Currently ED’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) performs these functions, but Project 2025 proposes moving them to the Department of Justice. However, there are concerns that this move could lead to an abandonment of educational equity and civil rights enforcement in schools.

First, this proposal misses critical aspects of higher education oversight—proximity and integration. As discussed, the Department plays an essential role in directly overseeing institutions of higher education. Moving OCR to the Department of Justice divorces civil rights from the educational context in which they are applied. Civil rights violations in education are complex and interconnected with issues of access, financial aid, institutional governance, and student support, all of which fall under the Department of Education’s jurisdiction. Removing OCR’s functions from this environment could lead to disjointed enforcement and a reduction in the effectiveness of civil rights protections within higher education.

Furthermore, the Department of Education provides a unique, comprehensive view of higher education, including how civil rights issues intersect with broader education policy. Having OCR within the same department that oversees educational institutions ensures a holistic approach to addressing civil rights violations. Education-related civil rights issues often involve questions about access to programs, resources, and equitable treatment in an environment shaped by federal regulations. The Department of Education’s direct oversight of educational institutions makes it the logical agency to handle these issues, ensuring that civil rights enforcement is not only timely but also aligned with the specific needs of students and educational institutions. Fragmenting this oversight could make it more difficult to address systemic issues and may lead to inefficiencies, particularly in cases where legal enforcement is required but must also be tied to federal education policies.

DOGE’s efforts don’t reduce bureaucracy, it just makes a more costly, less effective bureaucracy that would serve students, institutions, and taxpayers more poorly than it does today. Let’s be clear: the Department of Education isn’t perfect, but dismantling it entirely would create far more problems than it solves. Higher education is a public good. It’s a driver of economic mobility, innovation, and equity. And it needs a strong federal partner to ensure it works for everyone. Rather than tearing down the Department of Education, we should focus on reforming it to better serve students, families, institutions, and taxpayers. Because at the end of the day, a world without the Education Department isn’t one where the path to college improves. It’s one where it’s even harder to find.

For more on New America's growing collection of posts and statements on defending the Department of Education, see here.