The recent Education Department downsizing has ignited intense legal debate regarding the constitutional boundaries of executive authority and congressional prerogatives. On March 11, 2025, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced a massive reduction in force affecting nearly 50% of the department’s workforce, eliminating approximately 1,950 positions including 1,300 through involuntary layoffs. This dramatic workforce reduction represents what McMahon herself has characterized as the “first step” toward the ultimate goal of shuttering the department entirely, a longstanding objective of conservative education policy advocates who seek to return educational authority to state and local governments. As multiple legal challenges mount, with 21 Democratic attorneys general filing suit in federal court on March 13, this controversy highlights fundamental questions about separation of powers, statutory interpretation, and the executive branch’s obligation to faithfully execute laws enacted by Congress.
Constitutional Framework for Executive Authority
The American constitutional system establishes clear boundaries on presidential and executive branch authority. The Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine divides governmental authority among three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—to prevent the concentration of power and protect against tyranny. This framework creates a system of checks and balances where each branch possesses mechanisms to limit potential overreach by the others.
Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress, including the authority to create, fund, and define the missions of federal agencies. The President’s role, as defined in Article II, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which means ensuring that federal agencies fulfill their congressionally assigned duties. This constitutional obligation requires the President to implement laws as written by Congress, not to selectively enforce or effectively nullify them through administrative action.
The current controversy over the Education Department’s downsizing highlights these constitutional tensions. While the executive branch has authority to manage federal agencies, this power is constrained by Congress’s legislative authority to create agencies and define their missions. The lawsuit filed by state attorneys general argues that the administration’s actions infringe on congressional prerogatives by effectively dismantling an agency that Congress established through the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
Historical Context of the Department of Education
The Department of Education has been a subject of political controversy since its creation. Established as a Cabinet-level department in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the agency was formed by separating education functions from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The legislation creating the department, the Department of Education Organization Act, passed Congress with bipartisan support, though not without significant opposition, particularly from conservatives concerned about federal overreach in education.
From its inception, the department has faced calls for its elimination from conservative politicians and policy advocates. President Ronald Reagan campaigned on abolishing the department but was unable to achieve this goal during his presidency. Subsequent Republican administrations and congressional leaders have periodically renewed calls to eliminate or significantly reduce the department’s role, reflecting a longstanding conservative principle that education policy should primarily be determined at the state and local levels.
The current administration’s approach to the Department of Education represents the most aggressive effort yet to realize this conservative vision. During his campaign, President Trump repeatedly pledged to “send education back to the states” and to close the federal department. Upon nominating Linda McMahon as Education Secretary, Trump explicitly stated that she would “spearhead that effort” to return educational authority to state governments, making clear that her appointment was directly tied to the goal of eliminating the department she would lead.
McMahon’s Elimination Strategy
Secretary McMahon has been remarkably transparent about her intentions regarding the Department of Education. In a memo to department employees titled “Our Department’s Final Mission,” she outlined her vision for a “new era of accountability” aimed at returning control of education to the states while reducing what she termed Washington’s “overreach.” This memo explicitly acknowledged that the department’s “final mission” would significantly impact staff, budgets, and agency operations.
The workforce reduction announced on March 11 represents the first major step in this elimination strategy. The cuts affect approximately 1,950 employees, reducing the department’s workforce from about 4,100 to 2,150. This includes nearly 600 employees who accepted voluntary separation offers and approximately 1,300 who were involuntarily laid off. According to the department’s statement, these cuts will affect “all divisions” within the agency, including the Office of Federal Student Aid, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the Office for Civil Rights.
In a Fox News interview following the announcement, McMahon explicitly confirmed that these layoffs represent the “first step” toward shuttering the department entirely. When asked directly if the workforce reduction was the initial move toward closing the department, McMahon responded, “Yes, actually it is.” She acknowledged, however, that fully eliminating the department would “require working with Congress,” recognizing the constitutional reality that only the legislative branch can abolish an agency it created through statute.
Legal Challenges to the Downsizing
The Education Department’s massive workforce reduction has prompted immediate legal challenges. On March 13, 2025, a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, arguing that the administration’s actions violate constitutional principles and statutory requirements. This lawsuit represents the most significant legal challenge to the administration’s education strategy to date.
The lawsuit contends that the reduction in force is “so severe and extreme” that it prevents the department from carrying out its congressionally mandated functions. The attorneys general argue that this goes beyond presidential authority and violates the separation of powers doctrine by effectively nullifying Congress’s decision to establish and maintain the department. The complaint specifically alleges that the layoffs are not based on genuine justification or specific evaluations of departmental inefficiencies but are instead “inextricably tied to President Trump’s and Secretary McMahon’s fundamental opposition to the Department of Education’s very existence.”
The legal challenge further argues that the administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” and failing to provide adequate justification for such dramatic cuts. This argument suggests that proper administrative procedure would require a more thorough analysis of how the department could continue to fulfill its statutory obligations with a significantly reduced workforce.
The states assert that the extensive layoffs will cause immediate and irreparable harm to their educational systems by disrupting federal funding, impairing civil rights enforcement, and undermining support for students with disabilities. They point to specific examples of system breakdowns that have already occurred, including an online platform for grant distribution that allegedly became inaccessible following the announcement of the workforce reduction.
Separation of Powers Analysis
The legal battle over the Education Department’s downsizing centers on fundamental questions about the separation of powers in the American constitutional system. The lawsuit filed by state attorneys general argues that the administration’s actions represent an unconstitutional encroachment on legislative authority by the executive branch.
The Constitution establishes Congress as the branch with the power to create and define federal agencies. When Congress creates an agency through legislation, it establishes specific functions and responsibilities that the agency must fulfill. The President and executive branch officials are constitutionally obligated to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which means ensuring that agencies can perform their statutorily mandated functions.
The lawsuit argues that by reducing the Education Department’s workforce by nearly 50%, the administration has rendered the department incapable of fulfilling its statutory obligations. This, the plaintiffs contend, effectively nullifies Congress’s decision to establish the department and define its responsibilities, violating the separation of powers doctrine. As the complaint states, “In this instance, where Congress has established the Department of Education, the President and his Secretary cannot incapacitate it without direction from Congress.”
This argument reflects a broader constitutional principle that the executive branch cannot unilaterally nullify or effectively repeal legislation through administrative action. While presidents have discretion in how they implement laws, they cannot take actions that prevent the execution of statutory mandates. If the workforce reductions prevent the Education Department from performing its required functions, this could constitute a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Administrative Procedure Act Considerations
Beyond the constitutional questions, the legal challenge to the Education Department’s downsizing also raises important issues under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute that governs how agencies make decisions and take actions. The APA establishes procedural requirements for agency actions and provides standards for judicial review of those actions.
One of the key provisions of the APA prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” This standard requires agencies to provide reasoned explanations for their decisions, consider relevant factors, and avoid decisions that contradict the evidence before them. The lawsuit argues that the Education Department’s workforce reduction fails this standard because it lacks adequate justification and is motivated by policy preferences rather than legitimate administrative considerations.
The complaint contends that the administration has not provided a reasoned explanation for how the department can continue to fulfill its statutory obligations with a dramatically reduced workforce. It argues that the stated justifications for the cuts—improving “efficiency” and “accountability”—are pretextual, masking the true intention of dismantling the department from within. This argument draws on Supreme Court precedent establishing that agencies must provide genuine justifications for their actions, not post hoc rationalizations for decisions made on other grounds.
The APA also requires agencies to follow proper procedures when making significant policy changes. While the specific procedures required depend on the nature of the action, agencies generally must provide notice of proposed changes, allow for public comment, and consider relevant input before finalizing decisions. The lawsuit suggests that the administration failed to follow appropriate procedures in implementing such dramatic workforce reductions, particularly given their potential impact on the department’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandates.
Impact on Statutory Programs and Obligations
The Department of Education is responsible for implementing numerous statutory programs that Congress has established through legislation. These include administering federal student aid programs, enforcing civil rights laws in educational settings, collecting and reporting educational data, and providing funding and support for students with disabilities. The lawsuit argues that the massive workforce reduction will prevent the department from effectively carrying out these statutory obligations.
For example, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in educational programs and activities. These laws include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin), Title IX (prohibiting sex discrimination), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting disability discrimination), and the Age Discrimination Act. The lawsuit contends that significant reductions in OCR staffing will impair the office’s ability to investigate complaints, conduct compliance reviews, and enforce these important civil rights protections.
Similarly, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) oversees the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education. The lawsuit argues that cuts to OSEP will undermine the department’s ability to monitor state compliance with IDEA requirements, provide technical assistance to states and school districts, and ensure that students with disabilities receive the services and supports they are legally entitled to.
The department also administers federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study programs, which provide critical financial support to millions of students pursuing higher education. The lawsuit expresses concern that reductions in staffing at the Office of Federal Student Aid will disrupt the administration of these programs, potentially delaying aid disbursements and impairing the department’s ability to oversee program integrity.
Practical Implications for States and Educational Institutions
The legal battle over the Education Department’s downsizing has significant practical implications for states, educational institutions, and students. The attorneys general argue that the cuts have already caused system breakdowns and unresponsive administrators, potentially affecting funding for teacher salaries, professional development, and services for students with disabilities.
States rely on the Department of Education for billions of dollars in federal funding that supports various educational programs and initiatives. For example, Maine alone receives over $250 million annually for K-12 education, particularly targeting vulnerable populations such as multilingual learners and students with disabilities. The state’s public university system benefits from an additional $220 million in federal support through Pell Grants, student loans, work-study programs, and research funding.
Educational institutions also depend on the department for guidance, technical assistance, and regulatory oversight. Colleges and universities must navigate complex federal requirements related to financial aid, campus safety, and civil rights compliance. K-12 schools rely on departmental guidance regarding special education, civil rights, and educational equity. The massive workforce reduction could significantly impair the department’s ability to provide these essential services and supports.
Students, particularly those from vulnerable populations, may face the most severe consequences of the department’s downsizing. Students with disabilities rely on federal enforcement of IDEA and Section 504 to ensure they receive appropriate educational services and accommodations. Low-income students depend on federal financial aid programs to access higher education. And students facing discrimination or harassment in educational settings count on OCR to protect their civil rights. The lawsuit argues that all of these protections are threatened by the administration’s actions.
Historical Precedents for Agency Restructuring
The current controversy over the Education Department’s downsizing raises questions about historical precedents for significant agency restructuring or elimination. While presidents have broad authority to reorganize the executive branch, this authority is not unlimited and has typically been exercised within certain constitutional and statutory boundaries.
Previous efforts to eliminate or significantly restructure federal agencies have generally involved congressional action or explicit statutory authority. For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board was phased out in the 1980s through legislation that gradually transferred its functions to other agencies. Similarly, the Interstate Commerce Commission was eliminated in 1995 through an act of Congress that reassigned its remaining functions to other agencies.
In contrast, unilateral executive actions to dramatically reduce agency functions without congressional approval have faced significant legal challenges. During the Nixon administration, for instance, efforts to impound funds appropriated by Congress were ultimately rejected by the courts and led to the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limited the President’s authority to withhold appropriated funds.
More recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized that while agencies have discretion in implementing statutes, they cannot take actions that contradict clear congressional intent or render statutory schemes unworkable. In cases like Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) and Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020), the Court has reinforced the principle that agencies must provide reasoned explanations for significant policy changes and cannot disregard statutory mandates.
These precedents suggest that the administration’s strategy of dramatically reducing the Education Department’s workforce without congressional approval faces significant legal hurdles. While the President has authority to manage the executive branch, this authority does not extend to effectively nullifying statutory schemes established by Congress.
Potential Legislative Responses
The ultimate fate of the Department of Education may ultimately depend on legislative action rather than executive decisions or judicial rulings. As Secretary McMahon acknowledged, fully eliminating the department would “require working with Congress,” recognizing that only the legislative branch can abolish an agency it created through statute.
Several legislative approaches could potentially address the current situation. Congress could pass legislation explicitly prohibiting the administration from implementing further workforce reductions or requiring the department to maintain sufficient staffing to fulfill its statutory obligations. Alternatively, Congress could amend the Department of Education Organization Act to clarify the department’s essential functions and establish minimum staffing requirements.
On the other hand, Congress could also choose to support the administration’s vision by passing legislation to eliminate or significantly restructure the department. Several bills have already been introduced in the current Congress that would abolish the Department of Education and transfer its essential functions to other agencies. For example, legislation sponsored by Representatives Thomas Massie and David Rouzer would eliminate the agency and transfer civil rights enforcement for public schools to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and federal student loan programs to the Treasury Department.
The political dynamics in Congress will likely determine which of these approaches prevails. Given the current partisan divisions, achieving the legislative consensus necessary to either eliminate the department or explicitly protect it from further cuts may prove challenging. This political reality may leave the courts as the primary arbiter of the immediate legal questions raised by the administration’s actions.
Future of Federal Education Policy
Regardless of the outcome of the current legal challenges, the controversy over the Education Department’s downsizing reflects broader debates about the future of federal education policy in the United States. These debates center on fundamental questions about the appropriate role of the federal government in education, the balance between national standards and local control, and the most effective approaches to promoting educational equity and excellence.
Advocates for a reduced federal role, including the current administration, argue that education policy should primarily be determined at the state and local levels. They contend that federal involvement has led to excessive bureaucracy, unfunded mandates, and one-size-fits-all approaches that fail to account for local needs and preferences. From this perspective, returning educational authority to states and communities would foster innovation, accountability, and responsiveness to local circumstances.
Critics of this approach, including the state attorneys general who filed the lawsuit, argue that the federal government plays an essential role in promoting educational equity and protecting the rights of vulnerable students. They point to the historical importance of federal civil rights enforcement in combating educational discrimination and the critical role of federal funding in supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From this perspective, dramatically reducing the federal role could undermine important protections and exacerbate educational inequities.
The resolution of the current controversy will likely shape federal education policy for years to come. If the administration succeeds in significantly reducing the Department of Education’s capacity or ultimately eliminating it, this would represent a fundamental shift toward greater state and local control of education. Conversely, if the courts block the administration’s actions and reaffirm the department’s statutory obligations, this would preserve a more robust federal role in educational oversight and support.
Conclusion
The legal battle over the Education Department’s downsizing represents a significant test of constitutional principles regarding separation of powers, executive authority, and the faithful execution of laws. The administration’s strategy of dramatically reducing the department’s workforce as a “first step” toward its elimination raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of presidential power and the executive branch’s obligations to implement congressional mandates.
As the litigation proceeds, courts will need to determine whether the administration’s actions exceed executive authority and whether the department can still fulfill its statutory obligations with a dramatically reduced workforce. This case may establish important precedents regarding the limits of executive power in restructuring federal agencies without congressional approval.
Beyond the specific legal questions, this controversy reflects broader debates about federalism, education policy, and the proper balance between national standards and local control. The resolution of these issues will shape not only the future of the Department of Education but also the broader landscape of American education for years to come.
The outcome of this legal challenge will likely influence future administrations’ approaches to federal agency management and could shape the constitutional boundaries of executive authority in implementing or modifying congressionally established programs and agencies. Whatever the result, this case underscores the continuing importance of constitutional checks and balances in constraining executive power and ensuring that all branches of government operate within their proper spheres.
Website Citations Used
- https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5192635-trump-education-department-democrat-ag-lawsuit/
- https://www.npr.org/2025/03/11/nx-s1-5324746/trump-education-department-layoffs-closure-reorganization
- https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/13/politics/states-lawsuit-department-of-education-cuts/index.html
- https://abcnews.go.com/US/21-state-attorneys-general-sue-block-department-educations/story?id=119754992
- https://www.axios.com/2025/03/13/democratic-attorneys-sue-trump-doe-layoffs
- https://abc7news.com/post/20-democratic-led-states-sue-block-trump-administration-layoffs-us-department-education/16017911/
- https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-department-education-states-lawsuit-rcna196245
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/education-department-cuts-50-of-staff-what-does-this-mean-for-your-student-loans-fafsa-and-ieps/articleshow/118968150.cms
- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/education-department-lay-off-roughly-half-workforce-linda-mcmahon-rcna195038
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2025/03/13/education-department-layoffs-are-first-step-to-shutdown-per-mcmahon/
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/education-department-democratic-states-lawsuit/
- https://www.cnet.com/news/politics/department-of-education-rocked-by-layoffs-will-it-be-abolished/
- https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5191617-education-department-mcmahon-trump/
- https://www.pressherald.com/2025/03/13/maine-other-states-file-lawsuit-after-education-department-layoffs-shutter-boston-office/
- https://www.usnews.com/news/education-news/articles/2025-03-12/the-education-department-cuts-nearly-2-000-employees-what-to-know
- https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/12/education-department-documents-detail-agency-worker-terminations-00226222
- https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5325854/trump-education-department-layoffs-civil-rights-student-loans
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottwhite/2025/03/12/potential-impacts-of-department-of-education-cuts/
- https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/education-department-plans-to-cut-half-of-workforce-in-doge-push
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/education-department-layoffs-students-disabilities-rcna196114
- https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/ed-dept-will-shed-nearly-half-its-staff-in-massive-reduction-under-trump
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/12/education-department-cuts-student-loan-fafsa-iep-impact/82310137007/
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/12/education-department-layoffs-linda-mcmahon-interview/82304633007/
- https://local12.com/news/nation-world/department-of-education-cuts-expected-to-face-legal-challenges-linda-mcmahon-buyouts-early-retirement-trump-school-choice
- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/student-aid-policy/2025/03/13/how-education-department-layoffs-could-affect-higher
- https://www.bridgedetroit.com/dangerous-reckless-and-unacceptable-democratic-ags-sue-to-halt-education-department-layoffs/
- https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-03-13/california-democratic-states-sue-trump-over-education-department-slashing
- https://www.npr.org/2025/03/13/nx-s1-5320045/how-layoffs-at-the-education-department-might-affect-the-agencys-core-functions
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/nyregion/democratic-attorneys-general-education-department-suit.html
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us/democratic-led-states-sue-block-trump-dismantling-us-education-department-2025-03-13/
- https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-agencies-offer-staff-new-buyouts-ahead-trumps-layoff-deadline-2025-03-11/
- https://apnews.com/article/trump-education-department-layoffs-civil-rights-8cbf463cce765f497c10d688ab4d51e1
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2025/03/13/states-lawsuit-trump-education-department/82364001007/
- https://www.k12dive.com/news/education-department-announces-massive-layoffs-slashing-nearly-half-its-wo/742247/
- https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-plan-gut-department-education-stupid-cruel-1235295797/
- https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduction-force
- https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/latest-memos/guidance-on-agency-rif-and-reorganization-plans-requested-by-implementing-the-president-s-department-of-government-efficiency-workforce-optimization-initiative.pdf
- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/02/13/mcmahon-confirms-trumps-plans-dismantle-department-ed
- https://www.npr.org/2025/03/12/nx-s1-5325731/what-trumps-cuts-to-the-department-of-education-mean-for-schools-and-students
- https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/recent-trump-executive-orders-fundamentally-restructure-the-administrative-state/
- https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/pretext-for-the-president-states-say-trump-dismantling-department-of-education-from-within-via-staffing-cuts-is-an-unlawful-violation-of-the-separation-of-powers/
- https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-137/the-making-of-presidential-administration/
- https://www.colorado.edu/today/2025/03/13/department-education-cuts-could-affect-rural-schools-students-disabilities-expert-says
- https://hls.harvard.edu/today/when-a-president-takes-on-the-administrative-state/
- https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-is-cutting-the-department-of-education-in-half-heres-how-it-could-impact-you-and-your-loans-212812949.html
- https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/65308/the-education-department-is-being-cut-in-half-heres-whats-being-lost
- https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/03/11/education-department-reduce-staff-half
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAK9ArK_PjI
- https://www.propublica.org/article/education-department-civil-rights-division-eroded-by-massive-layoffs
- https://www.ctinsider.com/news/education/article/trump-education-department-layoffs-ct-20206016.php
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2025/03/11/education-department-offices-closed/82277811007/
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/education/news/20-us-states-take-legal-action-against-trumps-plan-to-dismantle-the-education-department-and-cut-jobs/articleshow/118985903.cms
- https://thepienews.com/us-education-department-halves-workforce/
- https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/department-of-education-cuts-expected-to-face-legal-challenges-linda-mcmahon-buyouts-early-retirement-trump-school-choice
- https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/states-sue-trump-over-education-department-firings/2025/03
- https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5175754-trump-education-department-cuts-mcmahon-executive-action-legal-challenge/
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44909
- https://www.bakermckenzie.com/en/insight/publications/2025/03/new-executive-orders-independent-federal-regulatory-agencies
- https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45442
- https://thehill.com/homenews/education/5190161-linda-mcmahon-education-department-mass-layoffs/
English 
Español de México
Education Department Downsizing: Legal Analysis of McMahon’s Elimination Strategy
Home » Blog » Civil Law » Administrative Law » Education Department Downsizing: Legal Analysis of McMahon’s Elimination Strategy
The recent Education Department downsizing has ignited intense legal debate regarding the constitutional boundaries of executive authority and congressional prerogatives. On March 11, 2025, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced a massive reduction in force affecting nearly 50% of the department’s workforce, eliminating approximately 1,950 positions including 1,300 through involuntary layoffs. This dramatic workforce reduction represents what McMahon herself has characterized as the “first step” toward the ultimate goal of shuttering the department entirely, a longstanding objective of conservative education policy advocates who seek to return educational authority to state and local governments. As multiple legal challenges mount, with 21 Democratic attorneys general filing suit in federal court on March 13, this controversy highlights fundamental questions about separation of powers, statutory interpretation, and the executive branch’s obligation to faithfully execute laws enacted by Congress.
Constitutional Framework for Executive Authority
The American constitutional system establishes clear boundaries on presidential and executive branch authority. The Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine divides governmental authority among three branches—executive, legislative, and judicial—to prevent the concentration of power and protect against tyranny. This framework creates a system of checks and balances where each branch possesses mechanisms to limit potential overreach by the others.
Article I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress, including the authority to create, fund, and define the missions of federal agencies. The President’s role, as defined in Article II, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which means ensuring that federal agencies fulfill their congressionally assigned duties. This constitutional obligation requires the President to implement laws as written by Congress, not to selectively enforce or effectively nullify them through administrative action.
The current controversy over the Education Department’s downsizing highlights these constitutional tensions. While the executive branch has authority to manage federal agencies, this power is constrained by Congress’s legislative authority to create agencies and define their missions. The lawsuit filed by state attorneys general argues that the administration’s actions infringe on congressional prerogatives by effectively dismantling an agency that Congress established through the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979.
Historical Context of the Department of Education
The Department of Education has been a subject of political controversy since its creation. Established as a Cabinet-level department in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, the agency was formed by separating education functions from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The legislation creating the department, the Department of Education Organization Act, passed Congress with bipartisan support, though not without significant opposition, particularly from conservatives concerned about federal overreach in education.
From its inception, the department has faced calls for its elimination from conservative politicians and policy advocates. President Ronald Reagan campaigned on abolishing the department but was unable to achieve this goal during his presidency. Subsequent Republican administrations and congressional leaders have periodically renewed calls to eliminate or significantly reduce the department’s role, reflecting a longstanding conservative principle that education policy should primarily be determined at the state and local levels.
The current administration’s approach to the Department of Education represents the most aggressive effort yet to realize this conservative vision. During his campaign, President Trump repeatedly pledged to “send education back to the states” and to close the federal department. Upon nominating Linda McMahon as Education Secretary, Trump explicitly stated that she would “spearhead that effort” to return educational authority to state governments, making clear that her appointment was directly tied to the goal of eliminating the department she would lead.
McMahon’s Elimination Strategy
Secretary McMahon has been remarkably transparent about her intentions regarding the Department of Education. In a memo to department employees titled “Our Department’s Final Mission,” she outlined her vision for a “new era of accountability” aimed at returning control of education to the states while reducing what she termed Washington’s “overreach.” This memo explicitly acknowledged that the department’s “final mission” would significantly impact staff, budgets, and agency operations.
The workforce reduction announced on March 11 represents the first major step in this elimination strategy. The cuts affect approximately 1,950 employees, reducing the department’s workforce from about 4,100 to 2,150. This includes nearly 600 employees who accepted voluntary separation offers and approximately 1,300 who were involuntarily laid off. According to the department’s statement, these cuts will affect “all divisions” within the agency, including the Office of Federal Student Aid, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the Office for Civil Rights.
In a Fox News interview following the announcement, McMahon explicitly confirmed that these layoffs represent the “first step” toward shuttering the department entirely. When asked directly if the workforce reduction was the initial move toward closing the department, McMahon responded, “Yes, actually it is.” She acknowledged, however, that fully eliminating the department would “require working with Congress,” recognizing the constitutional reality that only the legislative branch can abolish an agency it created through statute.
Legal Challenges to the Downsizing
The Education Department’s massive workforce reduction has prompted immediate legal challenges. On March 13, 2025, a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, arguing that the administration’s actions violate constitutional principles and statutory requirements. This lawsuit represents the most significant legal challenge to the administration’s education strategy to date.
The lawsuit contends that the reduction in force is “so severe and extreme” that it prevents the department from carrying out its congressionally mandated functions. The attorneys general argue that this goes beyond presidential authority and violates the separation of powers doctrine by effectively nullifying Congress’s decision to establish and maintain the department. The complaint specifically alleges that the layoffs are not based on genuine justification or specific evaluations of departmental inefficiencies but are instead “inextricably tied to President Trump’s and Secretary McMahon’s fundamental opposition to the Department of Education’s very existence.”
The legal challenge further argues that the administration’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” and failing to provide adequate justification for such dramatic cuts. This argument suggests that proper administrative procedure would require a more thorough analysis of how the department could continue to fulfill its statutory obligations with a significantly reduced workforce.
The states assert that the extensive layoffs will cause immediate and irreparable harm to their educational systems by disrupting federal funding, impairing civil rights enforcement, and undermining support for students with disabilities. They point to specific examples of system breakdowns that have already occurred, including an online platform for grant distribution that allegedly became inaccessible following the announcement of the workforce reduction.
Separation of Powers Analysis
The legal battle over the Education Department’s downsizing centers on fundamental questions about the separation of powers in the American constitutional system. The lawsuit filed by state attorneys general argues that the administration’s actions represent an unconstitutional encroachment on legislative authority by the executive branch.
The Constitution establishes Congress as the branch with the power to create and define federal agencies. When Congress creates an agency through legislation, it establishes specific functions and responsibilities that the agency must fulfill. The President and executive branch officials are constitutionally obligated to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which means ensuring that agencies can perform their statutorily mandated functions.
The lawsuit argues that by reducing the Education Department’s workforce by nearly 50%, the administration has rendered the department incapable of fulfilling its statutory obligations. This, the plaintiffs contend, effectively nullifies Congress’s decision to establish the department and define its responsibilities, violating the separation of powers doctrine. As the complaint states, “In this instance, where Congress has established the Department of Education, the President and his Secretary cannot incapacitate it without direction from Congress.”
This argument reflects a broader constitutional principle that the executive branch cannot unilaterally nullify or effectively repeal legislation through administrative action. While presidents have discretion in how they implement laws, they cannot take actions that prevent the execution of statutory mandates. If the workforce reductions prevent the Education Department from performing its required functions, this could constitute a violation of the President’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.
Administrative Procedure Act Considerations
Beyond the constitutional questions, the legal challenge to the Education Department’s downsizing also raises important issues under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute that governs how agencies make decisions and take actions. The APA establishes procedural requirements for agency actions and provides standards for judicial review of those actions.
One of the key provisions of the APA prohibits agency actions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” This standard requires agencies to provide reasoned explanations for their decisions, consider relevant factors, and avoid decisions that contradict the evidence before them. The lawsuit argues that the Education Department’s workforce reduction fails this standard because it lacks adequate justification and is motivated by policy preferences rather than legitimate administrative considerations.
The complaint contends that the administration has not provided a reasoned explanation for how the department can continue to fulfill its statutory obligations with a dramatically reduced workforce. It argues that the stated justifications for the cuts—improving “efficiency” and “accountability”—are pretextual, masking the true intention of dismantling the department from within. This argument draws on Supreme Court precedent establishing that agencies must provide genuine justifications for their actions, not post hoc rationalizations for decisions made on other grounds.
The APA also requires agencies to follow proper procedures when making significant policy changes. While the specific procedures required depend on the nature of the action, agencies generally must provide notice of proposed changes, allow for public comment, and consider relevant input before finalizing decisions. The lawsuit suggests that the administration failed to follow appropriate procedures in implementing such dramatic workforce reductions, particularly given their potential impact on the department’s ability to fulfill its statutory mandates.
Impact on Statutory Programs and Obligations
The Department of Education is responsible for implementing numerous statutory programs that Congress has established through legislation. These include administering federal student aid programs, enforcing civil rights laws in educational settings, collecting and reporting educational data, and providing funding and support for students with disabilities. The lawsuit argues that the massive workforce reduction will prevent the department from effectively carrying out these statutory obligations.
For example, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in educational programs and activities. These laws include Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, or national origin), Title IX (prohibiting sex discrimination), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (prohibiting disability discrimination), and the Age Discrimination Act. The lawsuit contends that significant reductions in OCR staffing will impair the office’s ability to investigate complaints, conduct compliance reviews, and enforce these important civil rights protections.
Similarly, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) oversees the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees students with disabilities the right to a free appropriate public education. The lawsuit argues that cuts to OSEP will undermine the department’s ability to monitor state compliance with IDEA requirements, provide technical assistance to states and school districts, and ensure that students with disabilities receive the services and supports they are legally entitled to.
The department also administers federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study programs, which provide critical financial support to millions of students pursuing higher education. The lawsuit expresses concern that reductions in staffing at the Office of Federal Student Aid will disrupt the administration of these programs, potentially delaying aid disbursements and impairing the department’s ability to oversee program integrity.
Practical Implications for States and Educational Institutions
The legal battle over the Education Department’s downsizing has significant practical implications for states, educational institutions, and students. The attorneys general argue that the cuts have already caused system breakdowns and unresponsive administrators, potentially affecting funding for teacher salaries, professional development, and services for students with disabilities.
States rely on the Department of Education for billions of dollars in federal funding that supports various educational programs and initiatives. For example, Maine alone receives over $250 million annually for K-12 education, particularly targeting vulnerable populations such as multilingual learners and students with disabilities. The state’s public university system benefits from an additional $220 million in federal support through Pell Grants, student loans, work-study programs, and research funding.
Educational institutions also depend on the department for guidance, technical assistance, and regulatory oversight. Colleges and universities must navigate complex federal requirements related to financial aid, campus safety, and civil rights compliance. K-12 schools rely on departmental guidance regarding special education, civil rights, and educational equity. The massive workforce reduction could significantly impair the department’s ability to provide these essential services and supports.
Students, particularly those from vulnerable populations, may face the most severe consequences of the department’s downsizing. Students with disabilities rely on federal enforcement of IDEA and Section 504 to ensure they receive appropriate educational services and accommodations. Low-income students depend on federal financial aid programs to access higher education. And students facing discrimination or harassment in educational settings count on OCR to protect their civil rights. The lawsuit argues that all of these protections are threatened by the administration’s actions.
Historical Precedents for Agency Restructuring
The current controversy over the Education Department’s downsizing raises questions about historical precedents for significant agency restructuring or elimination. While presidents have broad authority to reorganize the executive branch, this authority is not unlimited and has typically been exercised within certain constitutional and statutory boundaries.
Previous efforts to eliminate or significantly restructure federal agencies have generally involved congressional action or explicit statutory authority. For example, the Civil Aeronautics Board was phased out in the 1980s through legislation that gradually transferred its functions to other agencies. Similarly, the Interstate Commerce Commission was eliminated in 1995 through an act of Congress that reassigned its remaining functions to other agencies.
In contrast, unilateral executive actions to dramatically reduce agency functions without congressional approval have faced significant legal challenges. During the Nixon administration, for instance, efforts to impound funds appropriated by Congress were ultimately rejected by the courts and led to the passage of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limited the President’s authority to withhold appropriated funds.
More recently, the Supreme Court has emphasized that while agencies have discretion in implementing statutes, they cannot take actions that contradict clear congressional intent or render statutory schemes unworkable. In cases like Massachusetts v. EPA (2007) and Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020), the Court has reinforced the principle that agencies must provide reasoned explanations for significant policy changes and cannot disregard statutory mandates.
These precedents suggest that the administration’s strategy of dramatically reducing the Education Department’s workforce without congressional approval faces significant legal hurdles. While the President has authority to manage the executive branch, this authority does not extend to effectively nullifying statutory schemes established by Congress.
Potential Legislative Responses
The ultimate fate of the Department of Education may ultimately depend on legislative action rather than executive decisions or judicial rulings. As Secretary McMahon acknowledged, fully eliminating the department would “require working with Congress,” recognizing that only the legislative branch can abolish an agency it created through statute.
Several legislative approaches could potentially address the current situation. Congress could pass legislation explicitly prohibiting the administration from implementing further workforce reductions or requiring the department to maintain sufficient staffing to fulfill its statutory obligations. Alternatively, Congress could amend the Department of Education Organization Act to clarify the department’s essential functions and establish minimum staffing requirements.
On the other hand, Congress could also choose to support the administration’s vision by passing legislation to eliminate or significantly restructure the department. Several bills have already been introduced in the current Congress that would abolish the Department of Education and transfer its essential functions to other agencies. For example, legislation sponsored by Representatives Thomas Massie and David Rouzer would eliminate the agency and transfer civil rights enforcement for public schools to the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and federal student loan programs to the Treasury Department.
The political dynamics in Congress will likely determine which of these approaches prevails. Given the current partisan divisions, achieving the legislative consensus necessary to either eliminate the department or explicitly protect it from further cuts may prove challenging. This political reality may leave the courts as the primary arbiter of the immediate legal questions raised by the administration’s actions.
Future of Federal Education Policy
Regardless of the outcome of the current legal challenges, the controversy over the Education Department’s downsizing reflects broader debates about the future of federal education policy in the United States. These debates center on fundamental questions about the appropriate role of the federal government in education, the balance between national standards and local control, and the most effective approaches to promoting educational equity and excellence.
Advocates for a reduced federal role, including the current administration, argue that education policy should primarily be determined at the state and local levels. They contend that federal involvement has led to excessive bureaucracy, unfunded mandates, and one-size-fits-all approaches that fail to account for local needs and preferences. From this perspective, returning educational authority to states and communities would foster innovation, accountability, and responsiveness to local circumstances.
Critics of this approach, including the state attorneys general who filed the lawsuit, argue that the federal government plays an essential role in promoting educational equity and protecting the rights of vulnerable students. They point to the historical importance of federal civil rights enforcement in combating educational discrimination and the critical role of federal funding in supporting students from disadvantaged backgrounds. From this perspective, dramatically reducing the federal role could undermine important protections and exacerbate educational inequities.
The resolution of the current controversy will likely shape federal education policy for years to come. If the administration succeeds in significantly reducing the Department of Education’s capacity or ultimately eliminating it, this would represent a fundamental shift toward greater state and local control of education. Conversely, if the courts block the administration’s actions and reaffirm the department’s statutory obligations, this would preserve a more robust federal role in educational oversight and support.
Conclusion
The legal battle over the Education Department’s downsizing represents a significant test of constitutional principles regarding separation of powers, executive authority, and the faithful execution of laws. The administration’s strategy of dramatically reducing the department’s workforce as a “first step” toward its elimination raises fundamental questions about the boundaries of presidential power and the executive branch’s obligations to implement congressional mandates.
As the litigation proceeds, courts will need to determine whether the administration’s actions exceed executive authority and whether the department can still fulfill its statutory obligations with a dramatically reduced workforce. This case may establish important precedents regarding the limits of executive power in restructuring federal agencies without congressional approval.
Beyond the specific legal questions, this controversy reflects broader debates about federalism, education policy, and the proper balance between national standards and local control. The resolution of these issues will shape not only the future of the Department of Education but also the broader landscape of American education for years to come.
The outcome of this legal challenge will likely influence future administrations’ approaches to federal agency management and could shape the constitutional boundaries of executive authority in implementing or modifying congressionally established programs and agencies. Whatever the result, this case underscores the continuing importance of constitutional checks and balances in constraining executive power and ensuring that all branches of government operate within their proper spheres.
Website Citations Used
Subscribe to Our Newsletter for Updates
About Attorneys.Media
Attorneys.Media is an innovative media platform designed to bridge the gap between legal professionals and the public. It leverages the power of video content to demystify complex legal topics, making it easier for individuals to understand various aspects of the law. By featuring interviews with lawyers who specialize in different fields, the platform provides valuable insights into both civil and criminal legal issues.
The business model of Attorneys.Media not only enhances public knowledge about legal matters but also offers attorneys a unique opportunity to showcase their expertise and connect with potential clients. The video interviews cover a broad spectrum of legal topics, offering viewers a deeper understanding of legal processes, rights, and considerations within different contexts.
For those seeking legal information, Attorneys.Media serves as a dynamic and accessible resource. The emphasis on video content caters to the growing preference for visual and auditory learning, making complex legal information more digestible for the general public.
Concurrently, for legal professionals, the platform provides a valuable avenue for visibility and engagement with a wider audience, potentially expanding their client base.
Uniquely, Attorneys.Media represents a modern approach to facilitating the education and knowledge of legal issues within the public sector and the subsequent legal consultation with local attorneys.
Video Categories