📊 Key Takeaways
📋 1. Overview
HR 369 abolishes the Department of Education and repeals any program for which it has administrative responsibility. States receive Treasury grants for FY2025-FY2033 at FY2025 funding levels, minus amounts for transferred programs. The bill represents the most aggressive federal education devolution proposal since the Department's 1979 creation, converting $73.5 billion in categorical programs to unrestricted state block grants with minimal oversight. The legislation creates an eight-year funding cliff—grants terminate completely in 2033—while transferring major programs like Pell Grants and student loans to agencies without the personnel who currently run them. The initiative is explicitly linked to the "Project 2025" agenda, positioning it within broader conservative efforts to reduce federal scope.
---
🎯 2. What the Bill Actually Does
Eliminates the Department entirely. The Department of Education ceases to exist, with approximately 4,000 federal employees losing positions and all departmental programs either repealed or transferred within 24 months.
Converts federal education funding to unrestricted state block grants. States receive annual Treasury payments equal to their FY2025 federal education funding levels, usable for "any purpose permitted by State law"—including teacher raises, infrastructure, or unrelated education priorities—with no federal performance standards or outcome requirements.
Transfers major programs to agencies lacking education expertise. Pell Grants and $1.6 trillion in student loans move to Treasury; IDEA special education to Health and Human Services; career training to Labor; Impact Aid to Defense—all without transferring the Department personnel who administer these programs.
Creates an eight-year funding cliff. All state grants terminate after FY2033 with no continuation mechanism, forcing states to absorb $73.5 billion annually into state budgets, raise taxes, or cut education services.
Reduces federal oversight to mechanical payment processing. Treasury's authority is limited to making payments, approving auditors, and withholding funds for violations—no authority over program quality, educational outcomes, or performance metrics.
---
⚖️ 3. Winners and Losers
Winners:
✅ High-capacity states – Wealthy states with strong education systems gain maximum flexibility to redirect federal funds without federal accountability
✅ State legislatures – Gain control over approximately $73.5 billion in previously restricted federal education funding
✅ Conservative federalism advocates – Achieve longstanding policy objective of eliminating federal education role
Losers:
❌ Low-income students – Title I compensatory funding ($18 billion annually) disappears into unrestricted block grants without targeting requirements for high-poverty schools
❌ Students with disabilities – IDEA enforcement infrastructure eliminated; special education services transferred to Health and Human Services without specialized expertise or dispute resolution mechanisms
❌ College students – Pell Grant and student loan administration disruption during 24-month transition creates payment delays and processing failures for 6.6 million annual Pell recipients
❌ Rural and tribal communities – Impact Aid transfers to Defense Department without education policy expertise; vulnerable to funding redirection
❌ Low-capacity states – States with limited fiscal resources, weak administrative infrastructure, or competing budget pressures face operational collapse after 2033 funding cliff
❌ Civil rights enforcement – Office for Civil Rights abolished; Attorney General enforcement limited to reactive civil actions after 60-day cure periods, eliminating proactive compliance monitoring
❌ Department of Education employees – Approximately 4,000 federal positions eliminated with no transition provisions, severance, or reemployment assistance
---
🔍 4. Surprising Provisions & Common Misconceptions
💡 The "transfer" is administrative only—no people, no infrastructure Programs like Pell Grants serving 6.6 million students and $1.6 trillion in student loans transfer to Treasury within 24 months, but the bill explicitly prohibits transferring Department personnel. Receiving agencies must administer complex education programs without the workforce that currently runs them, creating severe operational collapse risk.
💡 States choose their own auditors The "approved auditing entity" must be approved by both Treasury and the state chief executive, creating a conflict of interest where states effectively select auditors to review their own spending. Audits focus only on fiscal compliance, not educational effectiveness or student outcomes.
💡 Civil rights protections remain on paper but lose enforcement teeth While Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 technically survive, the Department's Office for Civil Rights—which investigates thousands of discrimination complaints annually—disappears. Attorney General enforcement is limited to reactive lawsuits after 60-day cure periods, eliminating proactive monitoring and technical assistance that prevents violations.
---
📁 5. Fact Sheet
Key sponsors/backers: • Sponsor: Rep. David Rouzer [R-NC-7]; 13 Republican cosponsors • Aligned with President Trump's announced plans to end the Department of Education
Major supporters (industries or groups): • Conservative federalism advocates • State-rights organizations • Limited-government coalitions
Who opposes it: • Teachers unions (NEA, AFT) • Disability rights organizations • Civil rights groups • Higher education associations • State education agencies (concerned about administrative burden and funding cliff) • Bipartisan coalitions supporting IDEA, Pell Grants, and Impact Aid
Related bills or negotiations: • Part of broader "Project 2025" conservative policy agenda • Previous department abolition attempts in 1980s-1990s failed due to operational complexity and stakeholder opposition
---
⏭️ 6. What's Next
Current status: Introduced January 13, 2025; referred to House Committee on Education and Workforce
Procedural complexity ahead: • Multiple committee jurisdictions implicated—Education and Workforce has primary jurisdiction, but provisions affecting Treasury, Labor, HHS, Interior, and Defense create jurisdictional conflicts • Government Operations Committee may claim jurisdiction over department abolition and 4,000-employee workforce elimination • Jurisdictional complexity typically slows legislative progress significantly
Realistic outlook: • Bill faces substantial bipartisan opposition from education stakeholders • Operational risks—particularly Pell Grant/student loan disruption and special education enforcement gaps—create political vulnerability • Previous abolition attempts never advanced beyond committee consideration • Even with Republican control, concerns about disrupting education services for constituents may limit support
Timing pressure: • No immediate deadline, but FY2025 appropriations baseline (used for grant calculations) requires resolution • 90-day GAO feasibility study and 365-day presidential closure plan occur after enactment, reversing normal policy sequencing