Derrick Max | March 24, 2025
(Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy) — As promised repeatedly during the campaign, President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education (the Department). The order also ensures the continued delivery of essential services such as federal student aid and funding for students with disabilities. This historic move will rightly transfer most education funding and authority back to states and local communities — the first step, one would hope, in getting funds to parents where it belongs.
This has led to the expected outrage from progressives. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described the attempt to dismantle the Department as “one of the most destructive and devastating steps Donald Trump has ever taken” (probably the hundredth time he has made this assertion). House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries accused the administration of “taking a chainsaw to public education in America,” warning that such actions could lead to increased class sizes, educator layoffs, and cuts to special education programs.
President Trump’s Department closure, however, aligns with long-standing conservative philosophy that education policy is best that is determined closest to the students being served — namely, state and local entities and parents. The Thomas Jefferson Institute recently advocated for the closure of the Department, arguing that federal education oversight and funding imposes uniform standards that hinder schools’ adaptability to local needs and divert resources away from classrooms and towards administrative overhead. Eliminating the Department empowers states and local communities to tailor educational policies more effectively, fostering environments that better serve their unique student populations.
The executive order was crafted with an understanding that to completely close the Department would require an act of Congress, an almost impossible endeavor given the current political landscape on Capitol Hill. It was also written with an understanding that some functions of the Department need to be carefully transferred to other Departments, a process that takes time and care (student loans to Treasury or the Office of Civil Rights to Justice, as possible examples). In short, this was a significant but measured first step in getting education policy out of DC.
The future of the Department, or what’s left of it, now hinges on legislative actions and sure-to-be-filed legal challenges. The outcome will significantly impact the structure of the U.S. educational system for years to come.
In a brilliant response to President Trump’s executive order Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin announced that “Virginia is Ready.” The Commonwealth, according to the Governor, is prepared to assume full responsibility for K-12 education through his implementation of a “high-expectations agenda” that establishes rigorous standards that hold schools accountable, prioritizes resources for students and schools requiring the most support, increases educational options through his Lab Schools, and his historic increase of $7 billion in direct aid to education since the pandemic. His response was a litany of successes that provides a foundation for what can be done when President Trump shifts education funding and responsibility back to Richmond.
As the functions of the Department transition to state control, the upcoming gubernatorial elections will play a critical role in determining how the greater education funding and authority is managed in Virginia. Candidates must outline clear strategies for handling federal education funding and ensuring that vulnerable student populations do not experience disruptions in services and are provided greater educational opportunities.
Voters in Virginia should evaluate each candidate’s stance on curriculum standards, school choice policies, and funding allocation to determine who is best equipped to oversee education in a post-federal landscape. The election will serve as a referendum on how Virginia plans to handle this responsibility, making education policy a central issue in the upcoming campaign.
With this in mind, we could not have a more contrasting view from the two leading Virginia gubernatorial candidates on President Trump’s Executive Order. Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger expressed deep concern, stating that this action “could be devastating for Virginia’s kids” and have a potential negative impact on educational resources and support within the Commonwealth. Her approach boils down to a call for the continuation of federal control.
Conversely, Virginia Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears welcomed the executive order, describing it as a “game-changer for families across America.” She highlighted that this move empowers parents with greater choice in their children’s education, aligning with her advocacy for increased parental involvement in educational decisions. Her approach boils down to a call for parental control of education.
A recent poll of Virginia voters on education may prove instructive to the two candidates and other elected officials on how to use any extra funds sent to Virginia through the closure of the Department of Education. This poll, funded by education freedom leader 50Can, found that:
- While voters think Virginia is headed in the right direction, they are more frustrated by the direction of Virginia public education;
- Voters want better reforms in education, not just more funding;
- Voters believe in more school options;
- Voters support the Virginia Opportunity Scholarship; and
- Voters are more likely to vote for lawmakers who expand educational options.
Specifically in reference to Governor Youngkin’s $5,000 Opportunity Scholarship program, which was summarily dismissed by progressives in the General Assembly, Virginia voters supported the Opportunity Scholarships 57% to 28%. The pollster, Cygnal, reached 600 registered voters (between January 31st and February 1st) by different communications methods and then weighted the results to reflect the state’s political balance. The weighted sample reflects the majority vote for Democrat Kamala Harris and includes more self-identified Democrats than Republicans.
Ultimately, education shouldn’t just be taken out of DC, it should also be taken out of Richmond. The more we fund parents, and the less we fund systems, the more money will be available for parents to choose an education that is best suited for their children. The response of the two candidates for Governor shows that progressives place their trust in DC, while conservatives trust parents.
The question for Virginians in this election boils down to “who do you trust — DC bureaucrats, Richmond, or parents?” This is a debate any conservative should relish.
Derrick Max is the President and CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.