The bill eliminates the U.S. Department of Education, repeals most Department programs, and replaces federal programmatic oversight with direct cash grants to States equal to each State’s FY2025 federal elementary/secondary and postsecondary funding levels for fiscal years 2025–2033. Certain programs (for example, Perkins career education, IDEA special education, Pell Grants, and Federal student loans) are administratively transferred to other Federal agencies within a 24‑month window.
The measure creates a Treasury-administered intergovernmental payment mechanism with reporting and audit requirements: States must contract independent auditors, publish annual reports, and face a 100% repayment penalty for funds used in violation of the Act. The Attorney General retains a limited enforcement path for civil‑rights compliance; the GAO must study feasibility questions and the President must submit a Department‑closure plan.
At a Glance
What It Does
Abolishes the Department of Education and repeals its programs except where the bill specifically directs administrative transfers to other agencies. It directs the Treasury to pay each State annual grants equal to that State’s FY2025 elementary/secondary and postsecondary federal funding for fiscal years 2025–2033 and requires States to use funds under State law, supplementing (not supplanting) existing non‑Federal spending.
Who It Affects
State governments (governors, legislatures, education agencies), school districts and colleges that will receive money routed and governed by State law, successor federal agencies receiving transferred programs (Treasury, Labor, HHS, Interior, Defense), and current Department of Education employees and contractors.
Why It Matters
The bill would fundamentally change funding flows and federal oversight of education—moving from programmatic federal grants and oversight to block‑style payments paired with state accountability requirements—while preserving limited federal civil‑rights enforcement and imposing strict fiscal penalties that create new compliance risks for States.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act dissolves the Department of Education and repeals its statutory authorities except for specific programs the bill reassigns to other Cabinet departments. Rather than maintaining program-by-program federal grants and regulations, the bill substitutes direct, formula‑free cash grants: each State receives an annual payment from Treasury equal to the amount it received in FY2025 for federal elementary/secondary programs and an annual payment equal to FY2025 postsecondary funds.
Those payments continue through fiscal year 2033 and must be spent by the State in the year received or the following fiscal year.
States get broad latitude to spend the funds “for any elementary or secondary (or postsecondary) education purpose permitted by State law,” and the statute explicitly requires that the federal payments supplement, not supplant, non‑Federal funding. To create an accountability link, the bill requires States to contract annually with an “approved auditing entity” (independent and approved by both Treasury and the State chief executive) to audit the use of funds; audits must be made public and sent to Treasury and the State legislature.
If an audit finds violations of the Act’s expenditure rules, the State must reimburse the Treasury 100% of the misused amount, and Treasury may withhold future payments or offset amounts owed.The bill preserves limited federal civil‑rights protections by making nondiscrimination (under Section 504, Title IX, and Title VI) apply to programs funded with the redirected money. The Attorney General may require a State to secure compliance and, after a 60‑day cure period, may bring civil actions or use statutory enforcement tools.
Operationally, the Act directs that a set of Department programs be moved administratively to specific successor agencies within 24 months (for example, Perkins and job training to DOL, IDEA programs to HHS, Pell Grants and federal student loans to Treasury), but it clarifies that personnel are not automatically transferred and that the transfers are limited to administrative responsibility.To support the transition, the GAO must report within 90 days on feasibility questions about reducing federal direct involvement and on successor agencies’ ability to maintain transferred programs, and the President must send Congress a plan to close the Department within 365 days. Throughout the statute, Treasury’s role is tightly circumscribed to payment, approval of auditors, limited rulemaking for implementation, withholding/offset authority, and civil‑rights notification; otherwise, States assume programmatic responsibility under their own laws.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill directs Treasury to pay each State, by July 1 of the preceding fiscal year, two annual grants (K–12 and postsecondary) equal to that State’s FY2025 federal funding levels for those categories for each year from FY2025 through FY2033.
States must contract with an approved, independent auditing entity (approved by both the Secretary of the Treasury and the State chief executive) no later than October 1, 2025, and annually thereafter; audit results must be submitted to the State legislature and Treasury by April 30 each year.
If an audit finds that State funds were used in violation of the Act, the State must repay 100% of the misused amount to the U.S. Treasury; unpaid amounts may be offset against future grants.
Within 24 months the bill transfers administrative responsibility for specific programs to other agencies (e.g.
Perkins to Labor; IDEA special education and Institute of Education Sciences to HHS; Impact Aid to Defense; Pell Grants and federal student loans to Treasury), but it does not transfer Department of Education personnel.
Nondiscrimination obligations under Section 504, Title IX, and Title VI remain enforceable: the Attorney General can compel compliance and, after a 60‑day cure window, bring civil actions or use statutory enforcement authorities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Abolishes the Department of Education and repeals DOE statutes
This section terminates the Department and repeals the Department of Education Organization Act and the General Education Provisions Act, except for programs specifically reassigned elsewhere in the bill. Practically, it removes the statutory basis for DOE’s program offices and rulemaking authorities and creates the need for successor arrangements for any program the bill does not explicitly transfer.
Direct grants to States—amount, timing, and permissible uses
Treasury must pay each State two grants (elementary/secondary and postsecondary) equal to that State’s FY2025 appropriations for those categories, for each fiscal year 2025–2033, with payments to be made by July 1 of the preceding fiscal year. States may spend those funds under State law for any allowed education purpose (including teacher salary increases) but must treat the federal payments as supplementing, not supplanting, non‑Federal funds. The Act appropriates “such sums as necessary” to fund these grants.
Audits, reporting, penalties, and Treasury’s limited supervisory role
States must contract annually with an approved, independent auditing entity to audit expenditures of the grants; audits are due to the State legislature and Treasury by April 30 and must be made public. If an audit finds misuse, the State must reimburse the full amount to Treasury and faces withholding or offsets for nonpayment. Treasury’s statutory powers under this section are narrowly defined: approving auditors, making payments, issuing limited implementation guidance, and enforcing offsets or withholdings tied to audit or reporting failures.
Preserves federal civil‑rights obligations tied to funded programs
Nondiscrimination protections under Section 504, Title IX, and Title VI apply to activities funded with the redirected grants. The Attorney General is the designated enforcement official: after notifying a State and providing a 60‑day cure period, the AG may sue or invoke statutory remedies under the referenced civil‑rights laws. That preserves a federal enforcement backstop while limiting routine oversight.
Administrative transfers of selected DOE programs to successor agencies
The statute identifies specific program transfers and successor agencies (for example, Perkins to DOL; IDEA special education and IES to HHS; Indian education to Interior; Impact Aid to Defense; Pell Grants and federal student loans to Treasury). Transfers are limited to administrative responsibility and do not automatically move DOE personnel, equipment, or detailed program operations—raising practical questions about continuity of services during the transition period.
GAO study on feasibility of the transition and successor capacity
GAO must report within 90 days to House and Senate committees on (1) whether reducing federal involvement while lowering tax burdens is feasible for State/local education funding and (2) whether the named successor agencies can absorb the transferred programs. The short deadline signals Congress’s interest in near‑term implementation risk analysis but will likely yield preliminary—not operational—answers.
Presidential plan for Department closure and timeline
The President must submit a plan to Congress within 365 days describing how to close the Department consistent with the Act’s requirements. That plan must reconcile statutory transfers, Treasury payment procedures, enforcement roles, and the operational steps to wind down DOE offices—tasks complicated by the bill’s explicit prohibition on transferring DOE personnel as part of program transfers.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State governments: gain direct control of federal education dollars and broad discretion to spend those funds under State law, enabling policy changes (e.g., teacher pay increases or program redesign) without federal programmatic constraints.
- Local school boards and parents (in States that choose to devolve authority): stand to get decisions made closer to local communities if States reallocate funds to district priorities or parental‑choice initiatives.
- Successor federal agencies designated in the bill (Treasury, Labor, HHS, Interior, Defense): inherit administrative responsibility and, potentially, funding and program portfolios that expand their missions and budgets.
- Auditing and compliance firms: will see increased demand because States must contract approved, independent auditors annually and produce public reports, creating a new market for audit and compliance services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of Education employees and contractors: the bill does not transfer DOE personnel with programs, creating job losses or forced relocations and loss of institutional expertise that managed complex education programs.
- State governments: assume operational responsibility and legal risk—States must create or scale administrative capacity to run programs formerly managed at the federal level and face the financial risk of repaying 100% of misused funds.
- Successor agencies: must absorb program responsibilities and administrative workloads on short timelines (24 months) without guaranteed additional staffing or funding, potentially creating service disruptions.
- Students who rely on federal enforcement or program continuity (notably students with disabilities and low‑income students): face state‑by‑state variation in protections and program delivery during the transition, which could reduce access or uniformity of services.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is the trade‑off between returning education control and flexibility to States (respecting federalism and local choice) and preserving uniform federal protections, program continuity, and technical expertise; the bill gives States money and authority but substitutes financial penalties and limited civil‑rights enforcement rather than programmatic federal oversight, a trade that protects autonomy at the potential cost of equity and service stability.
The Act exchanges programmatic federal oversight for cash flow and a paper trail: States get broad spending discretion but must satisfy new auditing and reporting obligations under a regime that imposes a draconian 100% repayment penalty for misuse. That creates a compliance paradox—States may be tempted to preserve services conservatively to avoid repayment risk, but overly conservative administration could thwart the policy aim of local innovation.
Operationally, transferring program responsibility to other Cabinet agencies without transferring personnel or specifying transition funding risks service interruptions and knowledge loss—special education (IDEA), in particular, relies on complex compliance frameworks and monitoring that HHS is not structured to deliver in its current form. Moving Pell Grants and federal student loans to Treasury raises technical and statutory questions about program administration, borrower servicing, and conflict between Treasury’s fiscal functions and student‑aid servicing.
Finally, the bill’s approach tightens Treasury’s gatekeeping (auditor approvals, offsets), which could politicize audit approvals or create friction between States and a single federal payment administrator.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.