• President-elect Trump has vowed to abolish the U.S. Department of Education.
• Trump is also proposing using federal funding preferences for states that make key policy changes like adopting complete curriculum transparency and universal school choice, among other reforms.
• A principled framework for federal education policy should (1) honor constitutional congressional authority, (2) promote federalism by maximizing flexibility for the states, and (3) avoid new federal involvement.

​Former President Donald Trump has won a second term. And he’s just announced Linda McMahon, a former state school board member, administrator of the Small Business Administration, and World Wrestling Entertainment executive will head the U.S. Department of Education to send education “back to the states.” What does all this mean for education policy?

During Trump’s first term and throughout his recent campaign he made several bold proposals. If he is successful in enacting them, it would significantly change the direction of federal education policy. However, it is unknown whether he will muster the political support necessary to enact many of these policy ideas.

Here’s what you ought to know about some of Trump’s key education plans and how leaders ought to think through these ideas.

Eliminating the U.S. Department of Education

The president-elect has vowed to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. He championed this in his first term – as many GOP leaders have since President Ronald Reagan – and now he is saying it with more enthusiasm. This would likely require Democratic support in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, unless the Republicans in the Senate find a way for this proposal to be included in budget reconciliation.

For some, that prospect is scary. For others, it’s exciting and long past due.

Federal involvement in education is arguably not contemplated by the U.S. Constitution, and yet federal influence in education has grown over time – with unimpressive outcomes. Conservatives for years have advocated for states to be free of federal intervention in education policy and have resented the department.

Thus, the political gold standard for reducing federal influence in education has long been seen as the elimination of the Department of Education. Rightly so. The federal agency, which doles out money based on federal conditions and sends off letters of guidance, sits thousands of miles away from most states, symbolizing a detached yet powerful entity.

How best to get rid of or reduce the department remains a question. Many have noted that abolishing the department doesn’t mean all its functions cease – oversight of many funding streams approved by Congress could be farmed out to other, more appropriate agencies; returned to the states; or in some cases done away with completely. Some federal policy existed before the department’s creation and remain necessary, like certain civil rights protections. Congress is constitutionally authorized to make education policy in some areas, such as for the District of Columbia.

Whatever the reduction looks like, it needs to be coupled with the advancement of the core objective: eliminating inappropriate federal intervention in education. Getting rid of the department is important to the degree that it accomplishes that end.

From there, federal leaders should avoid creating new bureaucratic strings at the federal level. Changes could include making federal funds more flexible for states and families so they can be used as make sense at those levels.

On the other hand, at least one scholar at a conservative think tank argued that because Congress is unlikely to have the votes to get rid of the department during this next term, Trump should seek not to abolish the department but to use it. Advancing conservative policies, he argues, would press those on the other end of the political spectrum to hate the department and want to shutter it as well.

However, even this line of thinking admits that a single federal approach to education cannot best serve all people. It also assumes that getting rid of it necessarily means getting rid of federal intervention.

Regardless, America needs an approach that (1) reduces or eliminates the influence of the massive agency and (2) disempowers the inclination to use the federal government to intervene in areas where states should have authority.

Strengthening parents’ rights and education choice

Trump has made parents’ rights and education choice a central feature of his education platform since his first term and continues to do so today.

Since his original bid for the presidency in 2016, the policy landscape has changed immensely thanks to a pandemic and a states-led movement. Today, many more states have passed state-level education choice programs and have tackled parents’ rights and cultural battles. But the fight for the advancement of these issues is far from over.

Trump is proposing using funding preferences for states that make key policy changes like “adopt[ing] a Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice,” getting rid of teacher tenure, reducing administrative staff (including DEI), and implementing direct election of principals. On the other hand, he has proposed cutting funding for schools teaching CRT, gender ideology or other “inappropriate” content. Using funds this way can obviously influence state leaders.

A lot of current federal influence is dependent on states “voluntarily” complying with conditions in order to get federal funds – but the pressure to obtain the funds is immense, and the “voluntary” conditions often become policy. This alone can become undue federal influence.

From one perspective, the congressionally approved funding streams already exist – and are highly unlikely to go away – so using them to move states toward more parent-friendly policies makes a lot of sense. At the same time, federal leaders should avoid heavy-handed federal funding requirements.

Passing a Parental Bill of Rights could make sense if it gives parents remedies to violations of their rights. Still, in general, funding approaches should increase flexibility for how federal funds are used by states (possibly through block grants) and parents (some argue through education savings accounts-style policies). Likewise, even funding preferences would need to be flexible, because states might take different approaches to a policy in a way that reflects their state’s values. For example, Sutherland Institute has proposed a parent access policy in Utah (similar to curriculum transparency) where teachers are incentivized rather than mandated to share their curriculum with parents because the state is sensitive to teacher workload and retention.

Trump’s administration and federal leaders have also pushed federal tax credits for donations to organizations that offer scholarships for private education options. Many states have adopted a similar policy through their state legislatures to increase opportunities for deserving families to find new schooling options. Obviously, a federal tax credit program could add another pillar of financial support to education choice, but some scholars have warned that certain proposals could “grow, rather than reduce federal intervention in education” and further complicate efforts to streamline the federal tax code. Depending on whether it’s structured in ways that don’t solidify a federal role or conflict with a state approach, a good policy can become bad policy fairly easily.

Federal leaders will need to consistently evaluate whether any school choice proposals do more harm than good to the goal of reducing federal intervention in education. In the long run, parents are best served when power is truly restored to the states, where they have more access to decision-making.

A federal approach to these goals and conclusion

To summarize, good policy proposals should also advance longstanding American principles. Some of those principles include: (1) honor congressional authority to create policy where there is a federal nexus, (2) promote federalism by reducing federal red tape and maximizing flexibility for the states and families when there is already an existing state policy or funding stream, and (3) avoid creating further federal involvement in state decision-making.

Another term for Trump could drastically improve education policy for those looking to return power to the states, empower parents in their child’s education, or create new schooling options. Perhaps the political realities of Washington, D.C., mean that there’s no purist approach to putting power back with the states and parents. Certainly, reversing, reducing, consolidating and reorganizing federal power in education would be a massive win. But the biggest change would be to resist the urge to further create federal intervention in education.

Sutherland Institute policy intern Olivia Price contributed research to this article.