The Trump administration has launched one of its most sweeping federal reorganizations yet, taking early steps to significantly scale back the role of the U.S. Department of Education. In recent weeks, officials have begun transferring programs, staff responsibilities, and long-standing departmental functions to other parts of the federal government-moves the White House says are intended to streamline operations but which critics argue could weaken national oversight of public education.
According to officials familiar with the plan, hundreds of Education Department employees have received notices informing them that their roles will be reassigned to other agencies over the coming months. The affected workers represent a fraction of the department’s workforce, but the shift is being described by senior aides as the first phase of a broader effort to reduce the department’s footprint.
Internal planning documents indicate that a group of political appointees-informally referred to inside the department as the “HR Strike Team”-has been overseeing the process. Their responsibility includes arranging employee transfers to the Department of Labor, the Department of the Interior, and the Social Security Administration. The administration’s long-term goal is to gradually wind down the department’s staffing levels through the end of 2026.
One of the most significant changes involves the federal student aid system, which manages the country’s extensive student loan portfolio. The oversight of these programs is now being shifted away from the Education Department and into a new interagency structure anchored within the Treasury Department. The newly formed Federal Student Aid Configuration Team will be responsible for managing loan servicing, grant distribution, and related financial operations. It will be led by Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
Supporters of the restructuring say the new arrangement will create a more financially focused and efficient system for handling student aid, particularly as the government continues to grapple with a loan portfolio valued at more than a trillion dollars. They argue that placing the program under Treasury’s oversight will strengthen financial management and reduce administrative delays.
However, the administration’s effort to shrink the Education Department has triggered strong pushback from educators, Democratic lawmakers, and several advocacy groups. Critics warn that dispersing the agency’s responsibilities across multiple departments could lead to confusion, slower services, and reduced federal oversight of public schools. They also argue that dissolving a cabinet-level department would require congressional approval-a step that may face significant resistance.
Despite the controversy, White House officials insist the restructuring marks a practical and necessary modernization. While the administration has made clear it intends to pursue a full-scale closure of the department in the future, the current actions focus on redistributing responsibilities while Congress deliberates on the larger proposal.
For now, the transition signals a major shift in how the federal government may handle education policy, student aid, and oversight in the years ahead. Whether the broader plan succeeds will depend heavily on political negotiations-and the willingness of lawmakers to support one of the most significant federal reorganizations in decades.
