Administrators and Policy Makers Section - Article 2

Tags: Students, Faculty, Policy Makers

The Trump Administration’s Efforts to Dismantle the Department of Education: What It Means for Higher Education and PUIs

With his re-election, President Trump has brought into focus his administration’s aim to reduce the federal government’s role in education, this time with increased momentum. Central to this effort is the proposal to eliminate or significantly scale back the U.S. Department of Education (DoE). While such an overhaul has yet to materialize into law, policy outlines and public statements make it clear that the Department is under direct political threat. In this article, we provide an update on the current status of those efforts, outline the broader implications for American higher education, and discuss in particular how Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs) may be disproportionately affected by such structural changes.

Where Things Stand: A Department on the Chopping Block

As of mid-2025, the Department of Education remains intact, but political signals from the Trump administration and allied lawmakers point to a serious campaign to either dismantle or decentralize its core functions. Recent policy proposals include abolishing federal oversight of K–12 and higher education, eliminating enforcement of Title IX and civil rights protections, and transferring student aid responsibilities to state agencies. These proposals are echoed in draft bills and state-level resolutions, creating a policy environment where federal educational infrastructure is being systematically de-emphasized.

While the legal authority to eliminate an executive department like the DoE would require Congressional approval, incremental administrative actions such as defunding, executive orders, or departmental restructuring, which could begin reshaping its reach even without a full legislative mandate. Education policy analysts have already warned that the mere threat of such dismantling may chill federal-state partnerships, reduce clarity in program administration, and cause financial uncertainty across institutions.

The Broader Impact on U.S. Academic Institutions

The Department of Education currently plays a central role in the financial and operational stability of American colleges and universities. Its functions include the administration of Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study programs; oversight of accrediting bodies; enforcement of anti-discrimination laws; and distribution of funds for research and institutional development. Weakening or eliminating these mechanisms would produce a fragmented education landscape, with states varying significantly in terms of student support, regulatory enforcement, and quality assurance.

Institutions that rely heavily on federal aid to serve low-income and marginalized students, especially regional public colleges and smaller private universities, would be forced to adapt quickly or face severe operational strain. In many cases, the loss of federal aid infrastructure could increase student debt burdens, reduce access for underrepresented populations, and make it more difficult for institutions to plan financially or retain talent.

Specific Concerns for Primarily Undergraduate Institutions (PUIs)

For PUIs, the dismantling of the DoE poses a particularly acute risk. These institutions often serve a student demographic that is disproportionately dependent on federal support for access and retention, first-generation college students, rural populations, and those from low-income households. Programs such as Pell Grants, TRIO, and the Federal Work-Study program are critical to the functioning of PUIs. Without federal coordination and guarantees, many PUIs, especially those in states with smaller tax bases, may be unable to sustain such support independently.

Moreover, PUIs participate in research initiatives like the NSF’s RUI program (Research at Undergraduate Institutions), which are designed to fund faculty-mentored undergraduate research in teaching-intensive environments. These programs are often administered with federal oversight and funding support. Their disappearance or devolution to inconsistent state-level programs would undercut the scholarly mission of PUIs, further isolating them from national research opportunities and pipelines.

In addition, the absence of strong Title IX enforcement could expose students at PUIs to greater risk of inequity, harassment, or exclusion, particularly at institutions that lack robust internal compliance infrastructure. This could, in turn, reduce the institutional attractiveness to both students and faculty and limit PUIs’ ability to uphold inclusive, student-centered academic environments.

A Moment of Advocacy

The movement to dismantle the Department of Education is not merely a bureaucratic reorganization, it is a philosophical and structural redefinition of who holds responsibility for ensuring educational equity and access in the United States. For PUIs, whose missions often revolve around close student mentorship, affordability, and regional engagement, this shift could be existential.

We encourage our readers to remain engaged as this policy trajectory unfolds. In future installments, we will analyze how specific programs (such as Pell Grants, Title IX, and undergraduate research funding) may be affected, and what PUIs and their supporters can do to advocate for continued federal engagement in higher education.