Trump’s Mass Firings at Department of Education Are Already Harming US Students

On July 14, the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to fire more than 1,300 workers at the Department of Education (DOE). The order, while not a final ruling on the legal merits of the case, lifted a district court injunction that had prevented Trump from gutting the federal agency. Now, while litigation plays out in the courts, the administration is free to move forward with its campaign promise to shut down the DOE — a cause conservatives have championed for more than four decades.

Truthout spoke with two education policy experts at nonprofit think tanks to learn more about how the mass layoffs at the DOE will immediately impact schools, teachers, and students’ daily lives: Jon Valant, the director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, where his research specializes in K-12 education policy, and Sara Partridge, the associate director of higher education at the Center for American Progress. The interview below has been lightly edited for clarity and concision.

The DOE now stands to be roughly half the size it was in 2024, thanks to a combination of layoffs and resignations. What do you foresee as the most immediate or urgent impacts of the Supreme Court order allowing the Trump administration’s mass firings to continue?

Sara Partridge: One area that the workforce reductions were largely concentrated in is the Office of Federal Student Aid, which administers grant, work study, and student loan programs for 9.9 million students each year. The Office of Federal Student Aid is responsible for processing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), disbursing student loan forms, managing repayment of student loans, and providing oversight and monitoring of all the parties that participate in the federal student aid program. They also provide information to students and families and help to resolve complaints and issues related to student loan servicing. These are important responsibilities that ensure students across the country can access postsecondary education and repay their loans, and that taxpayer dollars spent on financial aid go to programs that meet federal requirements. Student loan borrowers will in all likelihood face a reduced quality of service and more issues with student loan repayment in the coming months and years as a result of these changes.

Can you talk a little more about the issues that current and future student loan borrowers will face?

Sara Partridge: Many student loan borrowers in repayment are already in distress and facing the risk of default. One recent analysis found that as of April, 5.8 million or 31 percent of borrowers with a payment due are in late stage delinquency, or more than 90 days past due on payments. Once payments are 270 days late, the borrower enters default and collections may begin. As many as 1.8 million could reach default status in July, 1 million in August, and 2 million in September, the study estimated. Already, borrowers who are past due on their payments have seen an average credit score decrease of 60 points, which will stay on their credit report for 7 years and result in less access to credit and higher interest rates. When in default, a borrower’s wages, tax returns, and Social Security checks may be garnished.

Currently, there is a backlog of at least 1.5 million applications for income-driven repayment plans, which will likely increase as more borrowers seek to switch out of the Saving on Valuable Education (SAVE) plan, due to the fact that the administration is restarting interest accrual for those who are currently in an administrative forbearance as a result of ongoing litigation against the SAVE plan.

When student loan borrowers have issues or errors with monthly payments, income-driven repayment plans, Public Service Loan Forgiveness, delays for relief under borrower defense or closed school discharge, or any other number of issues that their servicer fails to resolve, they can contact the Ombudsman Office at the Department of Education. As of March 2025, more than 6,500 complaints remained unresolved. I expect that these workforce reductions will make it even more challenging for borrowers to receive help or relief when they confront errors, challenges, or complex situations relating to their student loans.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) also just phased out a number of federal student loan repayment plans. How might the Supreme Court ruling and this budget bill together reshape the student loan landscape?

Sara Partridge: The Department has both ongoing and new duties to carry out that will require significant expertise, resources, and staff that may no longer be available. The Office of Federal Student Aid will have the task of implementing a range of new programs as a result of the OBBBA, including introducing new loan limits for graduate students and parent borrowers, moving borrowers into new repayment plans, and expanding Pell Grant eligibility to short-term workforce programs. Many of these changes will start to take place July 1, 2026, and some will require new regulations to determine how they will be implemented. These are tall tasks on a quick timeline, even for a fully staffed Department.

Student loan borrowers will see a range of changes starting in July 2026, including higher monthly payments under the new OBBBA plans. Graduate borrowers and parent borrowers will see new limits on federal student loans. The graduate and professional borrowing limits will likely disproportionately impact students pursuing medicine, dentistry, and other health care fields, forcing many to rely on more risky private student loans. The OBBBA also limits repayment options for parent borrowers, barring them from accessing income-driven repayment plans.

Is there anything students should do now to prepare for changes in student aid administration?

Sara Partridge: If borrowers are past due on their student loan payments, they should contact their servicer to work with them to prevent going into default. If they are a Parent PLUS borrower, they may want to consider consolidating their loans before July 2026 to access the amended income-based repayment plan (although this can, in some cases, reset progress toward cancellation, so borrowers should speak with their servicer about this choice).

If borrowers are facing ongoing challenges with their student loans that they cannot get resolution for with their servicer or the Department of Education, student loan borrowers can open cases with their congressional representatives, which will serve the dual purposes of getting them assistance while also making Congress aware of the myriad challenges borrowers are facing right now, and encourage them to hold the administration accountable for delivering on its statutory duties.

When might the effects of reduced capacity at the DOE begin to ripple into K-12 schools, impacting teachers and students?

Jon Valant: It looks like the staffing cuts are having negative impacts already. For example, the cuts were heavily concentrated in the Institute of Education Sciences, which has been slashed to the point where we’re losing access to data that we rely on to evaluate needs and progress. That being said, I think the most significant, direct impacts might actually come from the funding cuts — or the Trump administration’s attempts to withhold billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated funds — that are causing immediate headaches and sacrifices from schools. Those are previously approved funds that school districts have been promised that suddenly aren’t available for a new school year that’s quickly approaching. We’ll see where that ends up, since they’ll have to deal with legal and political challenges, but that could mean fewer services for English language learners and fewer before- and after-school programs. And now, just a month or two before the school year starts, school and district leaders are scrambling to figure out what cuts they might have to make to programs and staff.

Another agency disproportionately targeted by layoffs is the Office for Civil Rights. How do you think the DOE’s closing will impact equity and civil rights in schools?

Jon Valant: Protecting students’ civil rights is one of the core functions of the U.S. Department of Education. I’m concerned about what the Office for Civil Rights staffing cuts mean for the Education Department’s ability to fulfill its obligations in that regard — now and in the future. Maybe even more than that, though, I’m concerned with the way that this administration is redefining, twisting, and narrowing the Department’s priorities with respect to civil rights. In the past, the focus has been on protecting vulnerable groups of students. Now, the focus seems to be on weaponizing civil rights enforcement to threaten school districts and universities that don’t align with its positions on culture-war issues like LGBTQ+ rights. We’ve seen that with universities like Harvard and Columbia, as well as with state and local K-12 education agencies, including Maine and California.

Sara Partridge: The March 2025 workforce reductions closed seven of the Department’s 12 regional civil rights offices, laying off 208 investigators, or 55 percent of the agency’s total investigative staff. A recent court filing showed that under the Trump administration, the Office for Civil Rights has dismissed civil rights complaints at a rapid-fire pace. Historically, close to half of the complaints about civil rights violations have related to discrimination due to disability. Students of all backgrounds, but in particular those with disabilities, may see their rights to equal educational opportunity diminished under this administration, and evidence already suggests that layoffs of civil rights investigators are taking their toll.

Jon, you wrote in this Brookings piece that there’s a “dangerous gap between education’s problems and proposed ‘solutions.’” You note chronic absenteeism and large gaps in student test scores. Can you explain how dismantling the DOE fails to respond to the key problems you’re seeing in education — and how it could make these issues worse for students?

Jon Valant: Let’s run down some of the many challenges facing K-12 schools in the United States right now. We’ve seen years-long declines in academic performance — that started before COVID — especially among the country’s lowest-scoring students. We continue to battle high rates of chronic absenteeism and other indicators of student disengagement. We have alarming data on student mental health and have to grapple with challenges related to cell phone use, social media, and other issues that originate outside of classrooms. We have a workforce that’s rapidly changing with school systems that aren’t equipped to keep up with those changes. How does dismantling the U.S. Department of Education or slashing funds for schools help with any of that? I have no idea. This is an era of genuine challenges for U.S. students and schools, and yet many of our leaders seem more focused on winning culture-war battles than actually addressing those challenges.

What are some specific policies that you think would more adequately address these issues?

Jon Valant: I think what defines great schools, more than anything, is outstanding teachers and instruction. We can use policy more strategically to attract, retain, and develop excellent teachers, especially in schools that most need additional support. I also think we have a lot of work to do in evaluating the quality of curricular materials, encouraging schools and districts to adopt high-quality curricula, and training teachers in those curricula. And, really, I’d like to see policymakers think more seriously about schools’ role in sustaining a healthy democracy and cohesive society. School isn’t only about preparing students for college and the workforce. It’s also about developing an ability to get along with another, respect other people’s perspectives and experiences, know how to spot misinformation, and value the country’s norms and institutions.

Is there any angle or consequence you think is being overlooked in media coverage of the DOE dismantlement?

Sara Partridge: The nearly $900 million in cuts to federal education research undertaken by the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) are a critical blow to researchers’ and policymakers’ understanding of education outcomes, trends, and issues. In postsecondary education, these contracts help us understand how student loan dollars are distributed and the outcomes of students who borrow for college. They help us understand who continues to face barriers to enrolling and graduating from college. Some of these studies are longitudinal and take place over a decade or more, so interrupting and re-starting them means wasted resources and years of lost time. Canceling these projects is short-sighted and could potentially be deeply damaging to the long-term future of the American education system.

Republicans frame closing the DOE as an effort to give power back to the states. What role do the states play in this? Is it actually feasible for states to take over the DOE’s functions?

Jon Valant: President Trump likes to say that he’s “sending education back to the states.” But the truth is that states and localities, not the federal government, have been the key actors in K-12 education all along. For example, the federal government only covers about one-tenth of the expenses for K-12 education, with state and local governments covering the rest. The federal government isn’t involved in selecting curriculum or deciding what content students should learn. It doesn’t hire teachers and school leaders or even decide what standards should be used for hiring teachers and school leaders. Those responsibilities fall to more local levels of government. That’s not to say that the federal government isn’t important in K-12 education — it is. It plays key roles in protecting students’ civil rights, collecting data and supporting research, and providing funding and support to vulnerable groups, like students with disabilities and students in poverty.

Sara Partridge: The federal government conducts research and oversight, ensures students’ civil rights are protected, distributes funding to states and schools, administers postsecondary student financial aid, and runs grant programs that help fill gaps or foster innovation. States, on the other hand, are primarily responsible for academic standards, curriculum, and graduation requirements; teacher certification; and a majority of public school funding. Any major changes to these responsibilities would require an act of Congress. Historically, the federal government has played an essential role in prohibiting discrimination and ensuring equal opportunity for all students. Certain federal standards and guardrails also ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent on quality education. Shifting responsibility to the states without providing any mechanisms for accountability or oversight at the federal level would undoubtedly make the educational playing field more unequal and leave students with the greatest need behind.