Trump Pushes to Return Education to States, Criticizing U.S. System’s Global Standing

On March 20, 2025, former President Donald Trump announced a bold new policy move by signing an executive order aimed at returning control of education to the states. This initiative, which seeks to dismantle the federal Department of Education, is rooted in Trump’s criticism of the U.S. education system’s global standing and his belief that local governments and communities are better suited to manage education. Below, we explore the details of this policy, Trump’s critique of the current system, and the potential implications of this shift.

The Policy: Shifting Education Back to the States

Trump’s executive order directs the Secretary of Education to begin the process of closing the Department of Education and transferring authority over education to state and local governments. This move aligns with his “America First” agenda, which emphasizes reducing federal bureaucracy and empowering states to address their unique needs.

• Key Features:

  • Closure of the Department of Education: The federal agency, established in 1979, would be phased out, with its responsibilities either eliminated or redistributed to the states.

  • Focus on Local Control: Trump argues that states and parents should have greater say in education, free from federal regulations he deems inefficient.

  • Reduction of Federal Overreach: The policy frames the federal government’s role as a hindrance to educational progress, advocating for decentralized decision-making.

Trump has long claimed that the U.S. education system is failing due to federal mismanagement, asserting that returning control to the states will lead to better outcomes for students.

Criticism of the U.S. Education System’s Global Standing

A cornerstone of Trump’s argument is his assertion that the U.S. education system ranks poorly on the global stage. He has frequently stated that despite the U.S. spending more per student than nearly any other country, it ranks “No. 40” or “dead last” in international assessments. However, these claims do not fully align with the data.

• The Facts:

  • PISA Rankings: The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), a widely cited global benchmark, tests 15-year-olds in reading, math, and science. In the 2022 results, the U.S. ranked above average in reading and science among OECD nations but below average in math. It was nowhere near the bottom in any category.

  • Spending Context: While the U.S. is among the top spenders per pupil globally, it is not the highest—countries like Luxembourg and Switzerland outspend it in some metrics. High spending has not consistently translated into top-tier performance, particularly in math.

Trump’s rhetoric exaggerates the U.S.’s global standing, likely drawing from a misinterpretation of rankings like PISA, where the U.S. typically falls in the middle among developed nations rather than at the bottom.

Potential Impacts and Reactions

This policy shift has sparked a range of reactions, reflecting its potential to reshape the U.S. education landscape.

• Supporters’ Views:

  • Innovation and Flexibility: States like Texas and Iowa have welcomed the move, arguing it will allow them to tailor education to local needs and cut federal red tape.

  • Parental Empowerment: Advocates highlight the emphasis on parental rights, giving families more influence over their children’s schooling.

• Critics’ Concerns:

  • Equity and Access: Opponents warn that dismantling the Department of Education could widen disparities, particularly for students in low-income areas or those with special needs who rely on federal programs like Title I (for disadvantaged students) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

  • Uncertainty for Federal Programs: The future of initiatives like Pell Grants and civil rights enforcement in schools remains unclear without a federal agency to oversee them.

Education experts note that while states already control much of their education systems—funding, curriculum, and standards—the federal government plays a vital role in ensuring equity and protecting vulnerable students. Eliminating this oversight could lead to uneven outcomes across the country.

Broader Implications

Trump’s push to return education to the states reflects a broader trend in his governance philosophy: decentralization and a reduction of federal influence. The policy’s success will hinge on how states adapt to their new responsibilities and address challenges like funding and educational quality.

While Trump’s critique of the U.S. education system’s global standing is overstated, there are legitimate concerns about student performance, particularly in math and science. Returning control to the states could foster innovative solutions in some regions, but it also risks exacerbating existing inequalities if resource-poor states struggle to fill the gap left by federal support.

Conclusion

Trump’s policy to return education to the states, announced via an executive order on March 20, 2025, is a significant and controversial move aimed at addressing what he sees as a failing federal system. While his claims about the U.S. ranking last globally are inaccurate—data shows a mixed performance rather than a bottom-tier one—the policy taps into broader debates about federal versus state control. As states prepare to take on greater responsibility, the long-term impact on students, schools, and the nation’s global competitiveness remains uncertain, with both opportunities for innovation and risks to equity on the horizon.