The cuts to ED staff could have deleterious impacts on programs. Even if layoffs don’t translate to cuts in program funding, they could affect loan servicing, FAFSA, special education services, or the like.
Verdict: NOT AN OVERREACTION. Yup. Cutting the department by 50 percent certainly could impact its ability to answer questions or manage operations. Indeed, some media accounts have suggested it’s already happening. Of course, it’s also possible the cuts could make way for a more agile, efficient department. But the administration hasn’t yet explained the rationale for the cuts it made, articulated a vision of how a leaner ED will work, addressed the various practical concerns, or offered evidence to support its logic. Until it does, confidence in the efficacy of the cuts is mostly a matter of faith.
While the president says he’s seeking to empower the states, dismantling ED won’t necessarily accomplish that. Heck, it sounds like downsizing ED could even complicate efforts to slash red tape or shift authority out of Washington. It might make it tougher to streamline rules or issue waivers.
Verdict: NOT AN OVERREACTION. The inefficiency at ED is less about the people than the morass of rules and regulations that have accumulated over decades. This is widely misunderstood. Look at Title I, for instance. Cutting staff (or even dismantling ED) won’t resolve the issues with the program’s “time and effort” reporting, “supplement not supplant” strictures, or “maintenance of equity” mandates. Similarly, the boggy bureaucracy that suffuses special education is less about the ED staffers who operate it than the stacks of case law and accompanying rules that complicate it. Reducing the federal payroll is fine but doesn’t really solve these problems. Slashing red tape and returning power to the states requires rewriting rules, issuing waivers, convincing state and school leaders that it’s safe to act autonomously, or passing legislation that can reboot the system. And it’s possible that a lack of knowledgeable staff or the loss of institutional memory could make these things harder to do.
There’s a political risk here for the White House. Given the high-profile attempt to break up the department, the Trump administration could leave itself open to blame for all manner of familiar problems in K–12 and higher education.
Verdict: NOT AN OVERREACTION. When President George W. Bush contemplated invading Iraq in 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell famously warned him against doing so. Why? “You break it, you’ve bought it,” he said. That caution is apropos here. DOGE has painted a bright target on ED, and President Trump’s White House signing ceremony means he’s publicly and viscerally involved. The administration’s “move fast, break things” approach will make it tough to dodge responsibility if problems emerge with FAFSA, student lending, or special education, regardless of the culprit. If Team Trump fails to make a convincing case that things are under control, it will be easier for Democrats to blame the EO for all sorts of frustrations—no matter how tenuous the claim. Musk waving his chainsaw, Trump signing that EO, and then a series of suburban moms blaming Musk and Trump for special ed headaches could provide indelible images for Democratic campaign ads in 2026.
