U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon offered few specifics on how the Department of Education would consolidate funding streams and cut billions of dollars from its bottom line but repeatedly reassured lawmakers during a budget hearing Wednesday that vital dollars would remain even as she seeks to close the agency.
The hearing before a House of Representatives appropriations subcommittee followed the release of President Donald Trump’s “skinny budget” earlier this month, which lays out broad proposals with details yet to be filled in. The early budget stops short of executing Trump’s campaign promise to eliminate the department and move its vast portfolio to other agencies, but the plan seeks to reduce the agency’s overall spending and footprint.
Much of that work has already been underway. The 45-year-old agency, already the smallest Cabinet-level department by staff size, has shed nearly half its employees through buyouts and layoffs and slashed scores of contracts and grants since Trump took office in January.
Now, the administration is seeking to codify many of its cuts and expand them, calling for a 15% reduction to the department’s bottom line, shrinking it from roughly $80 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, to $66.7 billion in fiscal 2026.
Under the budget proposal, the agency would also consolidate 18 still-unspecified funding streams into a single block grant to states totaling $2 billion. The only line item for which the department proposes to increase funding is its charter schools grants program—a change the department already set in motion early last week.
On Wednesday, McMahon did not provide much more information beyond what the administration had already publicized, noting that “not all of the programs have been put into the full budget of the president.” She repeatedly vowed, however, that funding would continue for Title I, Part A—which provides grants to schools that serve students from low-income families—and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that funds services for students with disabilities.
Over the course of the more than two-hour hearing, McMahon didn’t elaborate on the department’s proposal to merge some special education funding streams into a single grant—an item mentioned in budget documents with little accompanying detail. She also didn’t say whether the department would maintain programs that support homeless students and teacher preparation—especially after severing dollars earlier this year for teacher-training programs it said embraced diversity, equity, and inclusion. The budget proposes to end at least one of those programs—the Teacher Quality Partnerships—but doesn’t elaborate on the proposed fate of others.
In their questions and remarks, lawmakers refrained from getting too deep into the budgetary weeds. Instead, they stuck mostly to party-line talking points, with Democrats arguing the dissolution of the department would harm disadvantaged students and Republicans championing the president’s vision and McMahon’s willingness to see it through.
“Without any information, we are being asked to provide resources—and resources that have been cut by 15%,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. “ ... We have no idea and no detail of what is on the chopping block.”
The administration prioritizes school choice and cuts for many other programs
McMahon, in her testimony, did seem to offer clarity that the department plans only to preserve—and flat-fund—Title I, Part A, specifically. It already proposed eliminating two grant programs for migrant students, totaling $428 million annually, that fall under the Title I law.
When lawmakers asked McMahon whether migrant students should continue to have access to public education, the education secretary said, “in some instances, yes.”
Two other programs that fall under Title I—one that supports education for incarcerated children and another that funds state grants for comprehensive literacy instruction—could also be on the chopping block if the department only protects the portion of Title I that pays for grants to school districts.
Even with Title I preserved in part, Democrats expressed their concerns about other parts of the budget proposal.
“Almost always, when we talk about block-granting programs, we make very, very, substantive cuts in the availability of resources for the programs that are covered,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
But McMahon defended the choices.
“Let’s look at it this way: We are eliminating regulations and red tape that a lot of these different grants had with them, and therefore they’re going to require less compliance with regulations in order to fulfill the mission of those grants,” she said.
Meanwhile, Republicans welcomed the department’s emphasis on school choice through its increase to charter school grants.
“The president is absolutely focused on making sure that children have the right to an education that is best for them and that parents should be deciding where their children can go to school and get the best education,” McMahon told lawmakers. “They should have those opportunities, whether they’re private schools, charter schools, public schools, home schooling.”
The department has been ‘hitting the ground running’ to implement Trump’s agenda
Rep. Robert Aderholt, the Alabama Republican who chairs the subcommittee, commended McMahon for “hitting the ground running,” saying she had “wasted no time implementing President Trump’s bold agenda.”
McMahon’s Education Department has become a strict enforcer of the president’s social agenda—opening a slew of discrimination investigations that threaten to pull federal dollars from school districts, states, and higher education institutions that don’t adhere to the president’s numerous orders seeking to stamp out diversity, equity, and inclusion programming; prohibit transgender athletes from participating in girls and women’s sports; and more.
The department also has reduced its staff by nearly half as a “first step” toward eliminating it altogether—as McMahon has previously characterized it—though doing so would take congressional approval. And the agency has canceled scores of contracts and grants that it says ran afoul of the president’s orders even though Congress had allocated those funds for those specific programs.
The efforts have drawn litigation on a number of fronts, with education advocates arguing that the department is moving aggressively to get its way before the courts intervene.
To one Democratic lawmaker’s assertion that “laws don’t mean anything to this administration,” McMahon asserted, “I will not respond to any question based on the theory that this administration doesn’t care anything about the law and operates outside it.”
Rep. Lois Frankel, D-N.Y., attempted to secure a commitment from McMahon that the Education Department will spend funds as Congress directs it to even if lawmakers don’t accept Trump’s plans.
“If Congress refuses to go along with the misguided plan to dismantle public education, will you commit to spending the money we appropriate in the 2026 budget as directed by law?” Frankel asked.
“We will abide by the law,” McMahon said.
