How Eliminating the Department of Education Will Harm Students with Disabilities

Once again, the Republican Party’s obsession with “smaller government” has led to delusional fears about the Department of Education. In March 2025, the Trump Administration signed an executive order calling for its elimination, handing power back to the states.

As always, the official rationale is to cut federal bureaucracy and allow states to control education, supposedly improving reading and math levels. In reality, the DoE does not directly “educate” students—it plays no role in curriculum or setting federal standards.

It’s true the U.S. scores low in reading and math, but even minimal research shows that socioeconomic inequalities, poor teaching methods, and underfunded schools are more accurate and mature conversation to have than scapegoating the DoE.

While the bill frames this as “returning power to the states,” the rhetoric Trump has been told to repeat—likely with brightly colored flashcards—is that the DoE represents a Marxist, Socialist, Woke, Radical agenda. In practice, this means he’s attacking schools for teaching kids to respect different cultures and lifestyles. One group that would be especially harmed if the DoE is eliminated is people with disabilities.

The passage of the ADA, the Americans with Disabilities Act, was a milestone in protecting disability rights. What’s often overlooked is the impact it had on children with disabilities entering public schools.

Without a federally mandated protection agency, some states may choose not to support students with disabilities—whether due to lack of funding or outright discrimination. People with disabilities already face higher poverty rates, and these numbers will only increase if they are denied a basic educational foundation.

Honestly, if Democrats want to preserve the Department of Education, they should emphasize how students with disabilities would be at risk. Republicans often rationalize harming other marginalized groups: Black and Hispanic students? “They don’t have fathers in the home.” LGBTQ+ students? “They’re confused—why should we pay for kids pretending?” Low-income families? “They just need to work; I worked during school.” But it’s much harder to justify harming disabled students without coming off as objectively evil