Education Policy Brief #211 | Charlie Sweeney | October 23, 2025

While most of the major media headlines about the Trump Administration’s education policies have focused on ideological battles with the nation’s premier universities, a quieter but more radical reshaping is taking place at the heart of the American education system itself.

When the Trump administration took office on January 20, 2025, its first moves sent shockwaves through classrooms across the country — especially for students with disabilities. For decades, federal laws like the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) have guaranteed every child a free and appropriate education. But as the new administration began reorganizing the Department of Education, many families started to wonder whether those rights would still hold the same meaning.

Within weeks, the Department of Education announced major staff cuts and rolled back key guidance documents. Hundreds of employees who monitored compliance with IDEA were dismissed or reassigned. Offices that once advised schools on federal special-education requirements fell silent. The message was clear: less federal oversight, more “local control.” For families of children with disabilities, that meant confusion and uncertainty. Districts didn’t know which rules still applied or who to call for help. Reporting by Education Week and The Hechinger Report detailed how these cuts disrupted special-education oversight and left parents facing long delays in getting help for their children.

By mid-2025, the administration began exploring an even larger structural shift — moving special-education programs, including IDEA, out of the Education Department and into the Department of Health and Human Services. The stated goal was efficiency and flexibility for states. But critics saw danger ahead. Moving oversight away from career education specialists, they warned, could weaken the federal protections that millions of students depend on. Analysis from the Brookings Institution described this as one of the most sweeping bureaucratic reorganizations of special-education governance in half a century.

The legal rights of students with disabilities technically remain intact. But with fewer federal staff, slower investigations, and shifting rules for grant distribution, those rights are harder to enforce. Schools may delay evaluations or reduce therapy and support services. In under-resourced districts, families could lose access to the very protections the 1970s laws were meant to guarantee. A review by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warned that these moves risk deepening inequities, leaving enforcement up to the uneven capacities of individual states.

Conclusion

The 2025 Trump administration’s changes didn’t repeal the landmark laws protecting students with disabilities — but they weakened the system that upholds them. Parents, advocates, and educators now face a tougher fight to ensure that every child, regardless of ability, continues to receive the education they are promised under federal law.

Sources

• Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — “Trump Administration Threatens Support for Children with Disabilities.”
• Education Week — “How Trump’s Layoffs Threaten Students with Disabilities.”
• Brookings Institution — “Trump Administration Weighs Future of Special Education Oversight and Funding.”
• Hechinger Report — “Parents, Advocates Alarmed as Trump Leverages Shutdown to Gut Special Education Department.”

Education Policy Brief #210 | Nicholas Gordon | October 23, 2025

Summary

Diplomatic “soft power” is related to a country’s ability to influence other nations through its core values and culture. American democratic values including a free press, the legal justice system, and foreign engagement programs are potent sources of American soft power. When public trust in these American democratic norms and institutions wanes, America stands to lose its invaluable soft power. Among President Trump’s many actions that diminish U.S. soft power—from his persistent, pernicious attacks on the American media, legal system, electoral process, universities, and allies, to his constant maligning of past U.S. presidents and his racist mocking of current U.S. politicians—it’s Trump’s attempt to terminate the nation’s long-running international exchange and aid programs that could have the most deleterious effects, making America weaker at home and abroad.

Analysis

In August, The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced plans to cut funding for at least 22 Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) programs, deeming them “lower funding priorities.” No matter that congressionally approved funding for these programs was already established for fiscal year 2025 (FY25). While the executive branch is responsible for protecting and executing the constitutional laws and ensuring funds are properly appropriated, the Trump administration instead shows brazen disregard for congress’s ‘power of the purse,’ that is, its constitutional authority to designate funding for these federal programs.

The American Economy Will Suffer

Venerable U.S. exchange programs bolster America’s economy and security, help develop crucial networks and partnerships, and create leaders and change-makers. The nonprofit advocacy group the Alliance for International Exchange estimates that more than 8,000 Americans stand to lose their jobs with the OMB funding cuts to U.S.-based ECA-partner organizations, while the American economy will squander billions of dollars. Representatives from both parties recognize the crucial role exchange programs play not just in the American economy but also in driving American influence and contributing to U.S. foreign policy objectives. Senators Cory Booker and Susan Collins, among others, have urged the administration to respect Congress’s approved funding. The leaders emphasize that exchange programs are one of the best returns on investment in federal funding, with 90% of exchange funding spent on American educators, institutions, and communities.

Damaging Global Partnerships

The robust bipartisan support for U.S exchange programs that has existed for decades has enabled crucial global partnerships to develop. OMB’s funding cuts on exchange programs will undermine years of U.S. diplomatic efforts. Just as Trump’s dismantling of the 64-year-old U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was criticized by geopolitical analysts as a reckless abandonment of international relationships and support networks that took decades to build, the termination of exchange programs will further damage America’s credibility with global partners. Trashing the trust earned with allies is a blunder more costly than cutting foreign aid. Meanwhile, rivals like China and Russia could gain a competitive advantage by filling the void left by Washington’s retreat from partnerships with developing nations.

The Human Factor

U.S. Exchange programs provide a wealth of opportunities for education, relationship-building, and personal and professional growth. English Language Programs, for example, sends U.S. educators abroad to help build English language teaching capacity and foster cross-cultural understanding, which galvanizes the participants’ careers as they return home with expanded skill sets and enriched perspectives. The Community Engagement Exchange develops emerging civil society leaders with skills, resources, and networks to implement projects on civics, peacebuilding, and sustainability. The Community College Administrator Program trains international education leaders in postsecondary school administration, workforce development, and private sector partnerships.

American citizens participating in exchange programs embody American values of hard work, leadership, support, innovation, and collaboration. Participants have a chance to share their diverse perspectives and experiences, while learning about those of people from other countries, too. Friendships are forged; professional relationships are established. Building these cultural bridges leads to new projects that improve people’s lives and strengthen communities. In other words, there’s more than just money at stake here, which is something that a corrupt deal-maker might never understand: Trump is shattering the livelihoods and callings of hardworking Americans dedicated to bettering the country and the world through exchange programs.

No Going Back 

While some of America’s partners might view Trump as an ugly aberration of America’s democratic leadership and await the return of a more diplomatically astute presence in the White House, many others will not. They will recognize that the America they trusted and shared values with does not exist anymore, and they will move on. American soft power will flounder in their wake. The rebuilding of these substantive U.S. global partnerships and the restoring of U.S credibility will not come easy, if it comes at all.

Engagement Resources:

• The Center for American Progress
  • An independent, nonpartisan policy institute “dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through bold, progressive ideas, strong leadership and concerted action”
• Alliance for International Exchange
  • “Promotes the growth and impact of U.S. international exchange programs and the effectiveness of its members, organizations, and companies”
• American Civil Liberties Union
  • Non-profit organization that defends individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws

Education Policy Brief #209 | Katie Lever | October 10, 2025

Summary

Leading up to the 2024 election, Donald Trump promised to dismantle the Department of Education, a sentiment that was supported in an executive order from the White House following Trump’s inauguration and also outlined in Project 2025. In a press release for the DOE published in March, U.S. Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, reiterated this plan, stating that her “vision is aligned with the President’s: to send education back to the states and empower all parents to choose an excellent education for their children.” In recent weeks, McMahon reaffirmed that the Trump administration is committed to fulfilling this promise by 2029.

One of the fundamental jobs of the DOE is to allocate funds to educational institutions that receive federal funding. However, because laws pertaining to education cross state lines, this paints an uncertain picture for the future of education in the United States. This reality directly intersects with one of the most groundbreaking and far-reaching policy pieces in American history: Title IX.

Signed into law by Richard Nixon in 1972 as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX states that “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]” Title IX is a federal civil rights law that prohibits sex-based discrimination at educational institutions and programs receiving federal funding, including primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, and extracurricular programs housed within these institutions (like sports teams). While Title IX does not directly address sexual harassment or assault, it helps female students navigate the legal process surrounding these acts by framing them as acts of sex-based discrimination and offering victims legal recourse when they are violated by their peers or superiors hired by their educational institution. Additionally, some teachers and staff are mandatory reporters, meaning that, under Title IX, they must report allegations of sexual harassment or abuse when disclosed by students. And because Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, it works in favor of men, too. For example, in 2021, members of the Clemson University men’s track team filed a Title IX complaint when their program was set to be eliminated the following season, arguing that not only did the university not provide enough support for female athletes, but that eliminating the men’s team would lead to proportionately fewer opportunities for men, which is also a Title IX violation. After submitting the complaint and gaining legal support, the men’s program was reinstated and Clemson promised that the university would complete a full gender equity review in coming years.

Title IX is enforced through several channels, including legal retaliation, criminal charges, and withdrawal of federal funding–if an educational institution that receives federal funding is found to be in violation of Title IX, the ultimate penalty is that its funding can be revoked. Additionally, many institutions that receive federal funding set up Title IX departments and enforcement officers and create reporting and investigation procedures to ensure that they are not in violation of the law. But with the current administration’s plan to dismantle the DOE with no clear strategy for replacing it, the future of Title IX is uncertain to say the least. Although a post-DOE world would not necessarily do away with Title IX or nullify it entirely, the potential landscape could severely limit the law’s reach.

Analysis

Title IX is by no means perfect. The three-prong test designed to measure its enforcement sets the gender equity bar low, and it is the responsibility of the victim of sex-based discrimination to report it, which makes for a difficult road to justice for impacted parties. Additionally, unlike in Title VII, the term “sex” in Title IX legally does not extend to gender identity or sexual orientation, and though some administrations have interpreted it that way, others conceptualize “sex” in Title IX as simply referring to sex assigned at birth. But Title IX nonetheless was a foundational piece of legislation that provided women access to education and sports like never before. From 1972 to 2012, women’s athletic participation increased sixfold, and female representation in the classroom, too, skyrocketed, as the number of women attaining at least a college degree tripled from 1968 to 2011. By setting up a precarious future for the law, the Trump administration puts over 50 years of such progress at risk.

Regardless of the future, history shows that the fastest and easiest way to hamstring women’s advancement in society is to deny them access to education and sports. This has already partially been achieved with the striking down of Roe vs. Wade in 2023. Forced pregnancies and births halt the future aspirations of many women, especially in a country that does not also offer them benefits like universal healthcare, government-funded childcare, and paid maternity leave. The post-Roe landscape has already led to over 64,000 births resulting from rape in red states and mothers living in states with abortion bans face double the risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth than those residing in abortion-friendly states.

Dismantling the DOE could be a logical next step in the continued subjugation of women by de-fanging Title IX via the dismantling of the DOE. Much like abortion laws, leaving education up to the states could be disastrous for women.