This guide outlines five urgent threats posed by the federal government’s retreat from public education, along with the concrete actions advocates must press state leaders to take to counter this Great American Heist and ensure that every student can succeed
February 10, 2026 by EdTrust 
Soon after President Donald Trump took office in January 2025, his administration launched an aggressive effort to “return education to the states.” In reality, this agenda is a sweeping federal attack on public education, a part of a broader Great American Heist that shifts power, resources, and protections away from students and communities and toward political ideology and private interests.
This is not about improving schools. It is a political attack with devastating consequences for students, especially those who are traditionally underserved: students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and immigrant youth.
By weakening civil rights enforcement, hollowing out funding, undermining accountability, and implementing a national voucher program, these policies strip away critical safeguards and widen opportunity gaps across states and communities.
While many of these actions have sparked legal challenges that are still moving through the courts, the push to dismantle the federal role in public education shows no signs of letting up. The threat is ongoing. The consequences are real.
In the absence of strong federal leadership, state leaders must step up. Equity advocates, policymakers, and education leaders must work together to stabilize funding, strengthen accountability, and enact policies that protect students and uphold their civil rights.
The following sections outline five urgent threats posed by the federal government’s retreat from public education, along with the concrete actions advocates must press state leaders to take to counter this Great American Heist and ensure that every student can succeed.
Photo by Allison Shelley for EDUimages
Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has been a key strategy of the Trump administration to shirk the federal government’s responsibility to ensure all students — particularly those traditionally underserved by America’s schools — can learn in safe, supportive, and inclusive learning environments.
Without the U.S. Department of Education:
[i] Shoemaker DeMio, P., & James, W. (2025, August 27). Public education under threat: 4 Trump administration actions to watch in the 2025-26 school year. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/public-education-under-threat-4-trump-administration-actions-to-watch-in-the-2025-26-school-year/
[ii] Long, C. (2025, August 28). In the assault on education research, students are the victims. NEA. https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/assault-education-research-students-are-victims
[iii] U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Summary.”
When it comes to ensuring that all students can thrive, money matters. Research shows that increased school spending is linked to higher graduation rates, higher wages, and reduced adult poverty. Yet most state funding systems are still inequitable and provide less for students who face greater barriers to opportunity: students of color, multilingual learners, students from low-income backgrounds, students with disabilities, and students from rural areas. Nationwide, federal funds make up about 10% of all public education funding and are designed to support students and districts with more needs. If federal support shrinks or becomes less stable, state leaders must protect equitable funding formulas and ensure that students with the greatest needs receive their fair share.
Since President Trump took office in January 2025, the administration has repeatedly rescinded, withheld, or threatened to withhold crucial federal education funding previously allocated by Congress to states and districts. Though federal funding makes up a small percentage of education budgets overall, it can be a large source of funding in high-need districts. For example, federal funds make up 20% of total funding in San Antonio, Texas, and 15% of funds in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Reduced federal funding also harms students in the South and rural areas, which rely more on federal funding than other communities. Cutting federal school funding would cause irreparable harm.
Data to Assess your own State’s Funding System
Defend state school funding systems to advance equity. Advocates play a key role in pushing state leaders to build funding systems that fully meet student needs and close long-standing opportunity gaps. In the face of federal rollbacks, advocates must mobilize to ensure state leaders protect and strengthen school funding systems that prioritize equity and adequacy — especially for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and students from rural areas.
Advocates should organize, build coalitions, and push lawmakers and state education leaders to:
Reform funding formulas to direct more resources to high-need districts: Demand changes that channel additional dollars to communities facing the greatest barriers to opportunity, helping close persistent funding and opportunity gaps.
Adopt student-centered, need-based funding models: Push for funding systems that allocate dollars based on the real needs of students, rather than outdated formulas that perpetuate inequities.
State leaders can and should do more to more adequately and fairly fund public schools. Too few state funding systems are investing enough funding to cover actual education costs and ensure that districts can provide enriching learning environments for all students. Additionally, many states still fall short of providing additional funding for students that are traditionally underserved by public schools. This makes it more difficult for districts and schools to boost student outcomes and close opportunity gaps. (Read more of EdTrust’s policy positions on school funding here.)
Advocates should push state legislators to:
Find or raise additional revenue. While federal funds may be reallocated or reduced, students’ needs are not decreasing. Many districts need more funding to continue supporting students, particularly those districts that lack the fiscal capacity to raise additional revenue and are facing the steepest fiscal cliffs. Advocates should work with lawmakers to increase investments in the following ways:
Ensure any funding cuts are fair. If federal revenue decreases substantially and funding cuts become inevitable, advocates must press state leaders to implement budget cuts in ways that do the least harm to high-need districts.
Lessons learned from the Great Recession of 2008 show that high-poverty districts faced longer-term economic harm when states indiscriminately cut public education funding, since they tend to be more reliant on state aid. Research shows that from 2009-2020, state aid-dependent districts struggled more to return to or exceed pre-recession levels of spending on a per-student basis than less state-aid dependent districts. Additionally, more state-aid-dependent districts had built up smaller financial cushions that could allow them to weather future shocks to their economies.
It is crucial that advocates help state leaders to choose the fairest approach to cutting state funding if cuts are necessary. One way is for states to prioritize providing temporary, supplemental transition grants to districts that meet all the following criteria:
As part of the broader push to dismantle federal education protections, the Trump administration has renewed efforts to convert core federal education programs into block grants. Block grants give states wide latitude to redirect federal dollars — previously targeted towards specific student groups and schools that need additional support — toward unrelated priorities. Without strong guardrails, struggling schools would have fewer resources and would deprive students — especially those in underfunded urban, rural, and suburban communities — of supports like tutoring, mental health services, after-school programs, and individualized instruction.
So far, Congress has rebuffed the administration’s budget requests to block grant many core programs, but ED has moved toward block-grant-like flexibility unilaterally through state ESSA waivers. In January 2026, ED approved Iowa’s request to consolidate state funding across four federal programs, including Title III — funding specifically intended to support English learners. This change allows Iowa to redirect these dollars to other state priorities, putting critical services and supports for English learners at risk.
This is just the beginning. Indiana, as of February 2026, has requested even broader flexibility, seeking authority to redirect funding across more programs and at both the state and district levels as well as changes to their accountability system that would limit communities’ ability to understand whether schools are adequately serving all students. And advocates expect other states will apply for similar flexibilities in the coming months — including Idaho, which plans to ask for changes to assessment requirements that would hold students to vastly different expectations. These changes would dramatically weaken federal funding and transparency protections. To stay up to date on the status of state waivers, visit essawaiverwatch.org.
Consolidating formula grants for elementary and secondary education, such as Title I funding for high-poverty schools and IDEA funding for students with disabilities, into a block grant poses three major risk for students: reduced funding, reduced targeting, and reduced accountability, all of which lead to fewer resources for the students who need them most.
Urge state legislators and SEAs to allocate block granted federal funds equitably and continue to supplement, not supplant existing local and state school funding. Many states already allocate additional, or supplemental, funds to districts for students who need support overcoming barriers to learning through their funding formulas. Should ED begin allocating federal title funds to states via block grants, advocates should work with their legislators and SEAs to:
Ensure transparency of and accountability for how education funds are allocated and spent. Advocates must urge state leaders to more clearly explain and share information about how they allocate funds to districts and to implement transparency measures that require districts to publicly report funding allocations and expenditures, ensuring that funds reach the students who need them most.
Ensure SEAs share timely information. The education policy landscape is constantly shifting under this administration. State education agencies (SEAs) must take a proactive approach to communicating with local education agencies (LEAs) and communities about changes to funding allocations.
Since the U.S. Department of Education was created, one of the federal government’s core roles has been to expand equitable access to educational opportunity. ED delivers targeted funding for students from low-income backgrounds, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and students experiencing homelessness, and federal civil rights laws protect students — especially students of color, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students — from discrimination and policies with disparate harms. The Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) enforces these protections by investigating complaints, collecting and sharing civil rights data, issuing guidance, and securing remedies. Since taking office, the Trump administration has used staffing reductions, executive orders, and guidance to weaken civil rights enforcement and pressure states and districts to roll back policies designed to support protected student groups.
Students’ educational rights require active enforcement. With major reductions in OCR staffing and new administration directives, Black and Latino students, students from immigrant populations, students with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ students face a heightened risk of delayed investigations and weakened protections. There were more than 20,000 civil rights cases pending at the beginning of the Trump administration; layoffs affecting more than half of the office have already resulted in the dismissal of tens of thousands of cases while threatening to slow enforcement for years and double caseloads.
Urge lawmakers to pass state laws that preserve and strengthen federal civil rights protections, especially where federal enforcement is weakening. This includes codifying core protections aligned to Title VI, Title IX, and IDEA to prevent discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and socioeconomic status—while explicitly protecting students based on sexual orientation and gender identity. States with existing civil rights laws should review and update them to ensure they are inclusive and enforceable.
Urge state leaders to pass laws that protect immigrant students’ right to learn safely and attend public school, regardless of immigration status. This includes prohibiting schools from requiring proof of citizenship, codifying Plyler v. Doe into state law, and adopting guardrails that prevent immigrant students from being targeted due to real or perceived status. Guardrails may include limits on information-sharing with immigration enforcement and requirements that districts develop clear protocols for responding to enforcement on or near campus.
Protect access to inclusive learning by prohibiting book bans and restrictions on representation in curriculum and instructional materials. Advocate for “Right to Read” legislation to protect librarians and teachers from civil and criminal liability for following professional development standards. These laws can prohibit removing books based on partisan, ideological, or religious disapproval, protect librarians and teachers from retaliation or discipline for complying with intellectual freedom principles, require formal policies governing library collection development and challenge procedures, and mandate that challenged books remain accessible during review processes. Many states require adoption of policies aligned with the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights or similar intellectual freedom principles.
Advocate for strengthening state civil rights statutes. Work with state leaders to allow legal recourse for practices with disparate impacts — where a neutral policy disproportionately harms students in protected groups. Push governors and state education agencies to build state capacity to replace what federal enforcement and transparency may no longer provide. Governors can convene a task force to review civil rights protections, strengthen data infrastructure, and issue recommendations for school boards and lawmakers.
Ensure data collection. SEAs should collect and publicly report key civil rights data historically supported through federal systems—including CRDC-aligned indicators and required IDEA reporting—and publish a biennial report at the school and district level alongside a resource hub on how to analyze data and address disparities.
The U.S. Department of Education provides funding and technical assistance that helps states build and maintain statewide longitudinal data systems and strengthens the capacity of state and local data leaders to collect and report accurate information. These supports help state leaders track key measures—like school spending, access to counselors and other support staff, and graduation rates —without duplicating effort or reinventing systems from scratch.
Federal data collection and reporting requirements — including disaggregating data by race/ethnicity, disability status, and other student identities — shine a light on inequities and help identify promising practices that can be replicated. This data is essential for leaders to target resources to the students and schools with the greatest needs and ensure all students have access to high-quality learning opportunities. The administration’s efforts to dismantle ED — especially the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) — put the public’s ability to understand school performance and hold systems accountable at serious risk. Without the expertise and capacity of these offices, it may become difficult to continue collecting, validating, and reporting the data that helps communities identify inequities and determine where additional support is needed.
This includes:
Urge state leaders to continue collecting and reporting required data. This includes data on student enrollment, participation in federal programs, and student outcomes. The dismantling of the Department of Education does not eliminate federal education laws, and states remain responsible for meeting reporting obligations under ESSA and IDEA — including public school and district report cards.
Push state leaders to strengthen transparency. They should strategically supplement state reporting with critical data the federal government may no longer collect or publish and integrate that data into existing state report card and dashboard systems so families and communities can easily access them. State leaders should work with districts to preserve the capacity to collect and report key indicators of opportunity historically captured through the CRDC, including access to advanced coursework, discipline, attendance, graduation, and staffing supports.
Encourage state leaders to invest in and improve statewide longitudinal data systems. That way, they can better understand student experiences over time and align resources accordingly.
In just one year, the Trump administration has upended decades of carefully built infrastructure aimed at understanding, tracking, and improving the conditions in which children in the U.S. learn and thrive. Now, more than ever, is the time for state leaders to advance education research and development (R&D). Advocates can use the Alliance for Learning Innovation’s State Education R&D Framework to learn more. Education R&D must always center the needs of underserved students and reflect a vision for education that prioritizes equity.
The federal voucher tax credit program provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to individuals who donate to scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) in states that have “opted in” to the program. The credit is capped at $1,700 annually for the individual, with no limit on the total amount of tax credits provided. SGOs distribute these “donations” to families, who can use the funds for a host of qualifying expenses including tuition for private schools, books, curricular and other educational materials, tutoring, online educational resources, dual enrollment fees, afterschool programs, and more. Importantly, this means families may be able to use the program while keeping their children in public schools. Families must be within 300% of an area’s median income to receive these funds from an SGO, meaning even wealthy families living in high-income areas will be eligible to participate. (For a list of the highest income eligibility limits in each state, refer to this memo.)
By January 1st of each year, governors must decide whether their state will “opt in” to the program and if so, must provide a list of SGOs in their state that will participate. SGOs have authority to determine which expenses they will fund and scholarship eligibility beyond the income limits described above, leaving the door open for possible discrimination.
The tax credit can be claimed beginning in 2027, but Treasury has already allowed states to begin opting-in if they choose.
As of January 2026, much remains unknown about how the federal voucher program will operate. The Secretary of the Treasury has regulatory authority over the voucher program and can use the rulemaking process to decide how it will work in practice. Treasury has already issued a Request for Comment (RFC) outlining questions they hope to clarify through this process. While no formal rules have been published, this initial document indicates that Treasury will likely:
Due to this tax credit, every dollar the federal government forfeits collecting is a dollar they don’t have to spend on public education. Given the Trump administration’s repeated support for voucher programs, coupled with their continued proposed or enacted cuts to public education, it’s not a stretch to assume that the likely substantial costs associated with this program will be used to justify further attempts to cut funding for public schools. Furthermore, although vouchers are overwhelmingly utilized by students already in private schools, public schools also stand to lose money directly from any students who use the program to switch from a public to a private school.
The legislation creating the federal voucher tax credit includes minimal accountability guardrails. While further guardrails may be implemented by Treasury through the rulemaking process, their initial RFC makes this seem unlikely. Without clear accountability guardrails, the program stands to funnel public dollars toward ineffective and unaccountable programs, most of which serve the wealthiest, while leaving those students with the greatest needs behind. Furthermore, the lack of accountability makes it difficult for the public to understand where and how their tax dollars are being spent. This makes it more likely that the program will be used to fund schools and services that have not been shown to educate students effectively, or even for expenses that are not educational.
The non-public institutions that will be supported and proliferated by this national voucher scheme are not bound by civil rights laws, not subject to public reporting requirements, not required to serve all students, and not subject to the same state level oversight as public schools. This means students — particularly Black and Latino students, and students from low-income students backgrounds — will be subject to an education system that is less safe, less welcoming, and less effective.
Note: The feasibility of the suggestions below may shift following the release of the Treasury’s final rules for the program, which will clarify how much latitude governors have to oversee the program’s operation in their state.
In states where the political or statutory environment makes opting out untenable, state advocates can work to minimize harm by:
March 13, 2026 by EdTrust The Indiana Department of Education is asking the U.S. Department of Education for a waiver to let a new system which violates federal accountability rules replace its federally compliant system
January 15, 2026 by Roxanne Garza The U.S. Department of Education (ED), signed off on regulations that would require all postsecondary programs to pass a single earnings test to remain eligible for federal student loans
OBBBA’s new regulations impose a lifetime limit on all federal student loans, including undergraduate. This means many students may reach their borrowing limit before completing their degree
