Department of Education: A Shrinking Agency

While the Trump administration is moving to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), the agency’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget still directs more than $66 billion in funding, revealing a complex mix of preservation, consolidation, and rollback. The proposed cuts and structural changes are positioned as a way to restore state control and reduce federal bureaucracy, yet the budget continues to underwrite critical services for millions of students.

This article unpacks the implications of the proposed changes for educators, parents, policymakers, and students.

Overview: A Department in Decline

The FY 2026 Request includes $66.7 billion in discretionary funding, a 15.3% reduction from FY 2025. This decline reflects the Trump administration’s campaign to return educational authority to the states and phase out the federal department over time.

“We’re going to be returning education very simply back to the states where it belongs,” President Trump said, as he signed the executive order to begin dismantling the department.

Despite the political messaging, the budget preserves significant funding for core programs like special education, Title I, Pell Grants, and workforce development, while eliminating or consolidating dozens of smaller programs.

Key Priorities Preserved

1. Title I Grants – $18.4 billion

Fully preserved, Title I remains a pillar for supporting high-poverty school districts with flexible local funding.

2. IDEA Special Education Grants – $14.9 billion

The budget proposes a $677.5 million increase, consolidating multiple sub-programs into the main state grants fund. This marks the highest-ever federal allocation for special education.

3. Pell Grants – $30.2 billion (discretionary + mandatory)

While the total Pell funding level is unchanged, the maximum award is reduced from $7,395 to $5,710—a result of congressional inaction and prior reallocation of Pell funds.

4. Career & Technical Education (CTE) – $1.4 billion

CTE remains a key area of investment, particularly aligned with the administration’s workforce and reindustrialization agenda.

5. Charter Schools – $500 million

Increased by $60 million, with expanded flexibility for states to support charter growth and facilities funding.

Sweeping Reform: K–12 Simplified Funding Program

The most significant structural shift in the budget is the proposed $2 billion K–12 Simplified Funding Program (SFP). It would merge 18 formula and competitive grant programs into a single state block grant. Programs absorbed include:

• 21st Century Community Learning Centers

• English Language Acquisition

• Rural Education

• Arts in Education

• Magnet Schools

• Education for Homeless Children and Youths

• Comprehensive Literacy Development

• Support for Migrant and Native populations

• Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants

The administration argues this will reduce “red tape,” empower states, and allow funds to be tailored to local needs. However, critics warn that consolidation without safeguards may jeopardize services for vulnerable groups.

“Advocates worry that vulnerable student groups—such as English learners, rural students, or those experiencing homelessness—could be deprioritized when funding streams are merged into broader, more discretionary state-controlled grants.”

States would still need to meet assessment, accountability, and reporting requirements under ESSA, but would gain broad flexibility on program execution.

Over 30 Programs Eliminated

Programs receiving zero funding in the FY 2026 request include:

• Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II-A) – $2.19B in FY 2024

• Promise Neighborhoods – $91M

• Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native Education

• Migrant Education

• State Assessment Grants – $380M

• Arts in Education, Magnet Schools, Gifted and Talented Education

• Comprehensive Centers, SEED, Teacher Incentive Grants, and more

Each is framed as redundant, duplicative, or better handled at the state level. These cuts, however, could create uncertainty for districts that rely on specialized federal funding to address equity and innovation.

Higher Ed: Stability with Caveats

Many supports for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs), including HBCUs and HSIs, are preserved:

• Title III (Institutional Development): $667.6M

• Title V (HSIs): $256.3M

• Mandatory FUTURE Act funding: $255M

Total MSI funding: $1.18 billion

Yet, as with Pell Grants, financial pressure looms. The budget notes that the Pell program is on “unstable footing” due to past legislative changes without matching appropriations—raising concerns about long-term sustainability.

Special Education & Disability Services: Streamlined Support

The budget streamlines multiple programs into the IDEA Grants to States program. Still, most disability services remain funded:

• Special Olympics: $36M

• Grants for Infants and Families: $540M

• Independent Living Services for Older Blind Individuals: $33.3M

• Helen Keller National Center: $19M

• Vocational Rehabilitation Grants: ~$3.7B post-sequestration

However, several programs such as Client Assistance Grants, Supported Employment, and Training Services are eliminated.

Conclusion: Recalibration or Retreat?

The FY 2026 budget reads as both a tactical retreat and an ideological realignment. On one hand, key programs like IDEA and Title I are maintained or even expanded. On the other, sweeping cuts to enrichment, innovation, and supplemental supports suggest a federal exit from the nuanced work of equity in education.

Ultimately, this budget may foreshadow a future where federal oversight is minimal—and education equity becomes increasingly dependent on state leadership.

Whether this approach leads to educational innovation or fragmentation remains to be seen—but its effects will be felt in classrooms across the country.

Key Takeaways

• Educators: Expect fewer federal programs and increased reliance on state decisions.

• Parents: School choice and charter options may grow, while other supports shrink.

• Students: Pell is preserved but smaller; access could narrow without new congressional action.

• District Leaders: Funding flexibility increases, but earmarked grants are disappearing.

Subscribe to edCircuit to stay up to date on all of our shows, podcasts, news, and thought leadership articles.