President Trump Proposes Meaningful Cuts to the Education Budget

President Donald Trump’s administration is closing the U.S. Department of Education, and his latest budget proposal is a step in that direction.

This month, Trump released his fiscal year budget request for 2027, proposing approximately $76.5 billion in funding for the Education Department, a 3% cut from one year ago. Top-line funding levels do not appear drastically different from the previous year because the administration is addressing the projected funding shortfall of the federal Pell Grant program. Pell Grants, federal grants for college students from low-income families, needed approximately $10.5 billion to meet current commitments.

The administration has been clear in its intent to refocus federal education policy on improving academic achievement while also returning education to the states. This budget reflects that shift through efforts to reduce staff, consolidate and eliminate dozens of duplicative and ineffective programs, and transfer certain programs to other agencies better equipped to implement those policies.  

The budget consolidates 17 formula and competitive K-12 grant programs (such as the Comprehensive Literacy State Development and Innovative Approaches to Literacy programs) into a newly proposed Make Education Great Again grant.

Consolidating funding into a single state formula grant would give state and local officials more flexibility to serve student needs. Even with this flexibility, state officials should support successful classroom instruction. The MEGA grants program calls on educators to prioritize evidence-based instruction in reading and mathematics to improve literacy and numeracy outcomes.

In addition, the budget did not change proposed spending levels for Title I (federal grants to local education agencies serving students from low-income areas), along with slight increases for special education programs, Impact Aid, and Indian Education.

Congress should now consider reforms such as allowing parents to use their child’s portion of Title I spending (so the spending follows the child). Congress should also modernize Impact Aid by creating parent-controlled education savings accounts for military families.

A Heritage Foundation report noted the complexity of Title I spending and how its complexity makes it difficult for educators to provide resources to children who need the most help. There is also “growing evidence to suggest that Title I [in its current form] has been and remains ineffective at improving educational outcomes.”

Reform is long overdue.

As of 2025, a survey of about 3,000 military families found that nearly three-fourths of respondents would support the establishment of an ESA program for military-connected students. With more than half of all active-duty military families living in states with no or limited school-choice options, Congress should consider such reforms as an effort to promote national security. A Military Times survey found that 35% of respondents relayed that dissatisfaction with their child’s education was a significant factor in their decision to leave military service. By providing our nation’s military with access to a wide variety of education options for their children will strengthen retention and help safeguard our nation.

The budget proposal also eliminates several discretionary higher education programs, including TRIO, GEAR UP, and International and Foreign Language Education, among others. Past reports have raised concerns about these programs.

In December 2020, the Government Accountability Office released a report noting that very little is done to verify the accuracy of the data that TRIO grantees report to the Department of Education regarding the number and percentage of students who received services and earned degrees, and that the Department of Education has never assessed the effectiveness of three of the seven TRIO programs that serve students.

Although International and Foreign Language Education programs were originally created to support the “security, stability, and economic vitality of the U.S.,” recent reports from the National Association of Scholars and others raise concerns that some may be working “against American interests” and that the Department of Education lacks effective oversight, especially in Middle East studies centers.

The new budget request also removes spending for several higher education funding streams related to Aid for Institutional Development programs, also known as Title III programs. Officials have found that some of these programs employ eligibility criteria for participants based on race, which would conflict with recent Supreme Court precedent and federal civil rights law.

As Congress begins deliberations on its own appropriations bills, lawmakers should carefully consider the president’s proposed cuts as part of a broader effort to close the Department of Education.

Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives’ Appropriations Committee approved a spending bill that cut education spending by nearly 15%, which aligned with the president’s FY26 budget request. This appropriations legislation reflected a long-overdue recognition that many federal education programs are duplicative and ineffective.

Unfortunately, the final version of the fiscal year 2026 budget bill resulted in a $217 million increase over fiscal year 2025 levels, preserving nearly every K-12 program House Republicans previously sought to downsize or restructure.

Congress should consider proposals to downsize the Department of Education. The agency has existed since 1980, but despite decades of federal investment, student achievement has stagnated.

Department officials have already made significant progress in partnering with other federal agencies to improve the handling of certain responsibilities. Education Department policymakers have entered into interagency agreements with the likes of the Department of the Treasury to share responsibility for managing the federal student loan portfolio, for example. This IAA alone accounts for nearly two-thirds of the Education Department’s budget.

Students do not need the Department of Education to operate in its current form to be successful. The president’s budget is the first step in right-sizing the Department and returning education to the states, but it should not be the last.