Since President Donald J. Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, he has signed 129 executive orders, most of which focused on cutting federal budgets and regulations. One of his targets was the Department of Education, which will be dismantled due to an executive order he signed on March 20.

While Trump cannot abolish a federal agency such as the Department of Education without congressional approval, he has instructed the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education” to the maximum extent permitted by law. 

The mission of the Department of Education is to “promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” 

To fulfill this mission, the department carries out several key functions, such as ensuring equal access to education, protecting the rights of all students, enhancing educational outcomes for students with disabilities, narrowing the gap in education outcomes for students from low- income families and supporting access to higher education opportunities. 

In the executive order targeting the department, Trump claimed that closing the department would give children and their parents a chance to escape “a system that is failing them,” and that “the Department of Education’s main functions can, and should, be returned to the States.” 

However, according to some critics, dismantling the department and stripping it of its resources could have catastrophic effects for students all across the country, including those at Stony Brook University. 

Georges Fouron is a professor in the Africana Studies Department and the Distributed Teacher and Leader Education Program at Stony Brook whose career in education spans more than four decades. To him, threats against the Department of Education endanger society’s most vulnerable members by stripping away essential protections.

“We do not know for sure where the various entities of the department, such as Title I, [the] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), financial aid and the Civil Rights unit will go, which is very troublesome,” he said. “These are the most vulnerable individuals in the country that used to benefit from the services the department used to offer. Moreover, it seems that the department’s Civil Rights units will be either dismantled or reconfigured. If that were to happen, who would protect the most vulnerable among us?”

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act, offers additional federal funding to school districts serving students from low-income families. The goal of the act is to ensure all students have access to a fair, high-quality education as well as close achievement gaps by allocating federal funds for education programs.  

Similarly, IDEA makes public education free and available to potential students with disabilities, ensuring the presence of special education-related services for them. Some of these services include early intervention and assessments for disabilities, speech pathology, physical and occupational therapy and psychological services when necessary. 

These acts are a few examples of the programs that are at risk under recent efforts to restructure the Department of Education. Some believe that the potential extinction of these programs would not only widen existing educational disparities, but potentially reverse decades of progress made toward educational equity and accessibility for all students. 

“What should be prioritized is to make sure that the education needs of children with disabilities, the English learners, the non-mainstream students, the trans[gender] students and the LGBTQ+ students continue to be attended to,” Fouron said. “These students are under attack for no logical reason. They have [done nothing] wrong.”  

He clarified that his main concern lies not just in the inequalities within the nation’s education system that already exist, but in the growing movement to eliminate equity-based support systems.

“To be frank, I am not worried so much about the inequalities that exist in American education, but instead the lack of equity that the opponents of diversity, equity and inclusion and the Department of Education want to implement,” Fouron explained. “If what will remain from the department does not address that very important issue, it will seriously impact those sectors of our country.”

He also emphasized that the American education system is already in a fragile state, and warned that the Trump administration’s actions could push it further into decline if certain elements are removed.

“I am really troubled by what the administration is doing to American education, which is already in bad shape,” Fouron said. “If the department becomes defunct, and if the civil rights section is eliminated, there will be no oversight to ensure that all students receive a quality education. Because of that, the nation will suffer significantly.”

Fouron’s concerns are echoed by others in the field of education, who view the administration’s actions as part of a continued struggle over who has access to public education. 

Andrew Engelhardt, an assistant professor in the Department of Political Science, believes that the recent efforts to limit diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the educational sector is part of a longstanding struggle over limiting access to public education.

“In my view, this fits in with fights over who should have access to education and what the content of that education should be since the roll out of public schools in the 1830s,” Engelhardt wrote in an email to The Statesman. “This fits with offering a public good (free school) to everyone where that everyone includes people from myriad backgrounds. Today’s efforts seem clearly tied to curricular fights in particular, with this indicative of diversifying student bodies generally.”

Expanding this to a broader historical context, Engelhardt discussed recent policy actions taken by the current administration that reflect these ongoing struggles, particularly through federal efforts to restrict funding tied to DEI initiatives in education. 

“Recent news reports have pointed to the Trump administration saying that they will withhold funding from schools that do not roll back DEI programs. Federal grants for research programs in colleges have been eliminated for, in part, involving race or diversity in some way,” he wrote.

The Trump administration threatening to withhold funding from schools that do not eliminate DEI programs comes after Trump signed an executive order on Jan. 20, directing officials to plan to eliminate federal funds for schools that he believes indoctrinate children based on “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology.” 

The effects of that executive order have already begun, as the Department of Education launched investigations into 52 universities, accusing them of “using racial preferences and stereotypes in education programs and activities.” The investigation stems from universities partnering with The PhD Project, a nonprofit organization focuses on supporting Black, Latine and Native American students planning to pursue doctoral degrees. 

Beyond targeting DEI initiatives and civil rights protections, the Trump administration’s actions signal structural changes that critics fear could interfere with how the system operates, particularly in the delivery and administration of federal financial aid. 

Englehardt warned these changes could have lasting consequences for millions of students who rely on federal support. 

“Eliminating the department would mean that some other entity would have to take over managing student loans,” he wrote. “Changing who runs student aid could mean that people have a harder time applying for federal loans or federal loan options are cut back, meaning the market shifts more to private actors[,] which would likely increase costs of borrowing, making college more expensive for those who cannot pay out of pocket.”

Trump has claimed that federal financial aid programs like the Pell Grant, Federal Work-Study and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program will be “preserved in full” and “redistributed to various other agencies and departments” within the federal government. 

The responsibility of managing student loans will fall on the Small Business Administration (SBA), which was created “to aid, counsel, assist and protect the interests of small business concerns, to preserve free competitive enterprise and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of our nation.”  

However, the move has raised concerns. The SBA would be tasked with overseeing federal financial aid and student loan programs, despite announcing on March 21 that it would be cutting its workforce by 43%. 

The agency will now be tasked with managing a federal student loan portfolio exceeding $1.5 trillion, prompting questions about how it will handle the increased responsibilities. This transition follows a 50% reduction in staff at the Department of Education as it completes its final duties.

Englehardt further highlighted concerns about the expanded workload, explaining the contrast between the Department of Education’s operations and those of major financial institutions. He pointed out that while the department is tasked with overseeing a massive student loan portfolio, it operates with a significantly smaller workforce.

“It’s hard to think about any efficiency gains,” Englehardt wrote. “In the White House announcement about the dismantling of the department, it likened the Department’s $1.6 trillion debt portfolio to that managed by Wells Fargo. But[,] while it noted Wells Fargo employs over 200,000 people, the Department of Education Office of Federal Student Aid employed under 1,500. In other words, the Department managed a dollar amount of loans comparable to Wells Fargo’s[,] but with many fewer employees.”

The potential risks to the federal financial aid system could have significant impacts on students at Stony Brook University, who rely on financial support to pursue their education.

At Stony Brook, 78% of students receive some form of financial aid, with the average amount given for one academic year totaling $13,100 per student. Additionally, 71% of students benefit from United States, New York State or Stony Brook University grants, averaging $10,162 per student, while 36% of students receive Pell Grants, with the average award amounting to $5,149 per student.

With the majority of the student body dependent on financial aid, any disruption to the administration or distribution of these funds could jeopardize students’ ability to continue their studies.

Sameer Gadkaree is the president of The Institute for College Access and Success, a nonprofit organization that works to make higher education more accessible and affordable in the U.S. He expressed concern in a public statement about the department’s layoffs.

Gadkaree specifically warned that “core functions of the department could experience outages or breakages, leaving students struggling to get or renew financial aid or campus-based aid,” adding that “student loan borrowers will struggle to access the benefits current law provides.”

In a statement to The Statesman, University officials reaffirmed Stony Brook’s commitment to maintaining both the highest quality and accessibility to education, regardless of federal policy shifts.

“Stony Brook University is closely monitoring ongoing developments by the federal government, including proposed changes and personnel cuts to the U.S. Department of Education,” University officials wrote. “From our founding, SUNY’s statutory mission has been ‘to provide to the people of New York educational services of the highest quality, with the broadest possible access, fully representative of all segments of the population.’ We are fully dedicated to that mission and its inherent commitment to a diverse and inclusive university and society.”