Much of the Trump administration’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education would become permanent under a package of bills released this week by Republicans on the House Education and the Workforce committee, including Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, the panel’s chairman.
The introduction of the 10 measures—which are expected to receive committee consideration as early as next week—represents the most significant step so far among congressional Republicans to make good on President Donald Trump’s campaign promise to nix the Education Department.
The package of bills, unlike some other legislation that’s been proposed, wouldn’t formally close the Education Department. But they still face long political odds, particularly in the U.S. Senate, where they would need Democratic support to overcome procedural hurdles.
The bills would codify many—but not all—of the interagency agreements the Education Department has struck with other Cabinet agencies over the past year-plus to shift day-to-day management of education programs elsewhere in the federal government.
To date, the Trump administration has struck 14 agreements shifting at least 148 Education Department programs and functions to six other Cabinet agencies, according to Education Week tracking.
The program moves are in various stages and not complete. And the Trump administration has yet to announce a new home for one major grouping of Education Department functions—those under the agency’s research arm, the Institute of Education Sciences.
Two of the bills would formalize in federal law the move of most major K-12 programs, including formula grants such as Title I for disadvantaged students, and career and technical education programs, to the U.S. Department of Labor.
Another would shift management of a handful of competitive grant programs for family engagement and social services at schools to the Department of Health and Human Services, legally cementing action by the administration in February. Another bill would direct the Treasury Department to take over the federal student loan program.
The bills would not, however, codify the Trump administration’s most recent administrative shuffles, which directed the Justice Department to absorb the Education Department’s office for civil rights and will send special education grants to the Department of Health and Human Services.
In particular, moving special education to HHS has sparked concerns even among some Republicans, including Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who chairs the Senate committee that oversees the Education Department.
Another significant difference: Under the agreements shifting programs to new agencies, the secretary of education retains ultimate decisionmaking authority over all of her agency’s programs.
Under the legislation, the Education Department would no longer have a role in overseeing or making decisions about these programs. Instead, authority would permanently shift to the head of the new agency.
“The legislative package reflects a simple principle: education policy should be focused on helping students succeed—not preserving a federal bureaucracy for its own sake,” Walberg said in a statement. “Rather than allowing unnecessary layers of Washington bureaucracy stand between families and the services they rely on, the bills would transfer key statutory authorities to agencies better equipped to carry them out while maintaining continuity for students and stakeholders.”
Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, the top Democrat on the education committee, blasted the bills.
“At the behest of Trump, Republicans have introduced a flurry of bills that would dismantle the Department of Education and offload critical offices to agencies that are ill-equipped to carry out core duties,” he said in a statement. “Despite Republicans’ rhetoric, they are not ‘modernizing’ the Department—they are blessing President Trump’s scheme to dismantle it piece by piece.”
As recently as May, Walberg acknowledged that Congress doesn’t have the votes to nix the Education Department—though he said he’s personally supportive of the move.
He praised Secretary of Education Linda McMahon for finding “creative” ways to partially accomplish that goal, a priority for many in the GOP for much of the department’s more than 40 years in existence.
Walberg’s staff did not immediately respond to a query from Education Week asking about next legislative steps, such as whether the bills would be scheduled for committee consideration or are expected to proceed to the House floor.
But sources said a markup has been tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, July 15.
Eliminating the Ed. Dept. hasn’t been popular among voters
The move comes just months before the November midterm elections, in which Republicans are expected to struggle to maintain their narrow majority in the House of Representatives.
Nixing the U.S. Department of Education isn’t a popular move, even among many Republican voters.
Two-thirds of respondents opposed or strongly opposed eliminating the Education Department in last year’s annual PDK Poll on Public Attitudes Toward Public Education.
Among Republican respondents, 46% supported or strongly supported eliminating the agency, but no Democrats in the poll did.
The poll of 1,005 U.S. adults was conducted from June 24 to June 30, 2025 by the Wason Center for Civic Leadership at Christopher Newport University in Newport News, Va.
McMahon has described the administration’s decision to move key education programs out of the department as a “proof of concept” to give lawmakers a full picture of how well the shifts would work in practice.
But Rachel Gittleman, the president of the branch of the American Federation of Government Employees that represents Education Department employees, said the decision has already resulted in implementation problems.
“States, grantees and taxpayers are already paying the price for education programs being unlawfully transferred to other federal agencies: funding delays, confusion and chaos for both employees and the public, wasted taxpayer dollars, and no accountability or oversight,” Gittleman said in a statement. “This new legislation will not make the system more efficient—it will break it.”
