Education Department Restructuring: Agencies to Assume Core Tasks, 2025

(UNITED STATES) The U.S. Department of Education is shedding many of its powers and handing them to six other federal agencies, in one of the most sweeping shifts of federal education authority in decades. Announced on 18 November 2025, the restructuring moves large parts of the department’s work in K‑12 schooling, higher education, Native American education, child care on campus, and international and foreign‑language programmes into other parts of the federal government. The Trump administration says the goal is to “return education to the states” and shrink what it calls a bloated federal bureaucracy.

What changed and when

Under a series of interagency agreements signed on 30 September 2025, the U.S. Department of Education will no longer be the main home for many of the programmes that touch American classrooms and universities today.

• The administration framed the change as an effort to streamline federal education activities, reduce administrative burdens, and refocus programmes and activities to better serve students and taxpayers.
• The agreements were signed just one day before the recent federal government shutdown began, when most Education Department staff were already being sent home — a timing that has raised questions about public and congressional scrutiny.

Agency-by-agency transfers

The most important operational moves are the reassignments of programme oversight to other Cabinet departments. Key shifts include:

Why the administration says it’s doing this

Supporters inside the administration argue:

• States know their schools better than Washington does and should have more space to design local systems.
• Moving work to agencies like Labor and HHS will place programmes closer to related fields (e.g., workforce training, child welfare).
• Cutting staff and consolidating offices will save money and reduce red tape — though detailed savings estimates have not yet been released.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon was ordered in a March executive order to work toward shutting down her own department. By shifting key functions to other agencies, the administration is testing how far it can go in breaking up a Cabinet department without a new law from Congress.

Reactions, concerns, and political context

• Democratic lawmakers and several state governors reacted sharply, warning that moving programmes out of the department may erode protections for low‑income students, students with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups.
• Critics argue that scattering programmes across multiple agencies will make it harder for families and schools to know where to turn, and easier for protections to fade.
• Supporters counter that civil rights laws remain in force regardless of which agency carries them out, and that modern data systems can track student needs across government.

“Return education to the states” is the administration’s slogan, but governors and state officials warn it could mean “return the bills to the states” without sufficient federal backing.

Many Democrats in Congress say the White House is trying to circumvent the will of past Congresses that created and expanded the Education Department. Notably, this reorganization is taking place without explicit congressional approval, relying instead on existing legal authorities for interagency agreements and grant management.

Staff cuts and departmental capacity

The restructuring follows a wave of personnel reductions that has dramatically reduced the department’s capacity:

• More than 1,300 employees were laid off in March 2025, followed by additional cuts in October.
• In all, nearly half of the department’s workforce has been eliminated this year.
• One attendee of a recent staff meeting described the room as “standing room only,” not because there were many workers left, but because so many wanted to hear what would happen to their programmes.

Impact on international students and universities

Universities that host international students (visas such as F‑1 and J‑1) are closely watching the transfer of international education functions to the State Department.

• These schools depend on steady rules for federal grants, language programmes, and study‑abroad exchanges that often link to visa and compliance systems.
• While visa categories are run by the Department of Homeland Security and State, changes in who funds and oversees international programmes can influence how campuses support foreign students.
• VisaVerge.com reports that many international offices now fear a period of policy confusion as agencies sort out new roles.

Possible direct effects on international students:

• Scholarship availability, language support, and exchange opportunities may shift depending on how State aligns funding with foreign‑policy goals.
• That could change which regions and languages receive more funding, and influence how universities design study‑abroad partnerships.
• For a student from abroad deciding where to study in the United States 🇺🇸, these shifts may affect scholarship chances, language support on campus, or exchange opportunities linked to their home country.

Visa‑linked training, foreign workers, and employer partnerships

Some visa‑linked education and training programmes involve partnerships among universities, employers, and government agencies. If oversight moves to Labor, HHS, or State, compliance rules for these partnerships could change.

• That may affect how employers structure training for workers on visas like H‑1B, especially when those roles involve teaching, research, or medical training in higher‑education settings.
• No visa categories have changed as a direct result of this restructuring, but institutional partners are already preparing for new reporting lines and potential updates to grant rules.

Operational complexity for campuses

Universities and colleges now face a more complex map of federal contacts:

• Instead of primarily working with the U.S. Department of Education on programme funding, campuses may need to coordinate with State, Labor, Interior, and HHS — each with its own systems and culture.
• Campus advisers worry about losing clear points of contact in Washington while global student flows are under pressure.
• Some institutions are creating internal task forces to track which federal office now controls which programme, so they can keep visa compliance and funding aligned (VisaVerge.com analysis).

Remaining programme reviews and highest‑risk areas

Officials have signalled that several major areas remain under review and could be moved eventually:

• Special education services
• Civil rights enforcement
• Student loan programmes

Potential impacts of those shifts:

• For disabled students (including international students with special needs), changes in special education oversight could reshape legal duties for schools and colleges.
• Civil rights enforcement affects students who face discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, or disability.
• Student loan policy influences the financial health of many universities, which affects the services they can offer all students, including those from abroad.

Legal and planning uncertainties

Legal experts and affected institutions point to the lack of detailed public transition plans as a major problem:

• The Education Department has not released full guidance explaining exactly how each programme will move, how staff will be reassigned, or how grant rules might change.
• That leaves school districts, colleges, and advocacy groups guessing about timelines and operational details.
• Officials say day‑to‑day operations will continue and grantees should keep following current rules until told otherwise, but many fear a repeat of past slow or confusing rollouts.

Where to follow updates

For those tracking the changes, the official site of the U.S. Department of Education at ed.gov remains the main public source of federal statements and documents on the restructuring. The site hosts press releases, policy memos, and links to affected offices. Agencies receiving new responsibilities (e.g., the Department of Labor and the Department of State) are expected to post additional details as transfers take effect.

State and advocacy responses

• State education departments are already assessing how the push to “return education to the states” will affect their roles. Some conservative states welcome greater control; others worry about added complexity and fewer central supports.
• Advocacy groups representing students with disabilities, low‑income communities, and Native American tribes are preparing for legal challenges. They argue that scattering programmes across six other federal agencies could weaken civil rights protections and make it easier for future administrations to cut funding without scrutiny.
• Supporters reply that the laws remain in force and that decentralization could align programmes with related federal missions.

Key takeaways

• The move transfers significant Education Department responsibilities to several Cabinet agencies, notably Labor, Interior, HHS, and State.
• The shift is unfolding without explicit congressional approval, relying on interagency agreements and existing legal authorities.
• The short‑term uncertainty — about contacts, compliance, grant rules, and oversight — is a major concern for schools, universities, and advocacy groups.
• How well the receiving agencies coordinate will determine whether the reorganization delivers on promises of efficiency or deepens worries about access, equity, and the United States’ role in global education.

For now, families, students, and schools both in the United States 🇺🇸 and abroad must watch how the changes unfold over the coming months. International students will likely use the same visa channels and follow many of the same rules this next academic year, but the institutional landscape behind the scenes is changing fast as the U.S. Department of Education gives up large parts of its mission and other agencies step in.