Earlier today, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to begin dismantling the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) to the fullest extent permitted by law. This move aligns with Trump’s long-standing campaign promise to eliminate the federal agency and devolve its responsibilities to the states.
During a press conference with reporters, Trump said forty states could do well without the Department of Education. He also noted that five could do alright, but five won’t do so well.
Unfortunately, New Jersey could be one of those five states the President feels would descend into chaos without federal guidance and support.
While the complete abolition of the DOE would require congressional approval—a challenging prospect given the need for Democratic votes to overcome a Senate filibuster—Trump’s administration appears poised to slash budgets, freeze operations, and shift as much authority as possible to state governments.
For New Jersey, a state heavily reliant on federal education funding and governed by a strong Democratic establishment, the implications could be profound, potentially thrusting its public education system into uncharted territory.
The Federal Role in New Jersey’s Education System
New Jersey’s public schools serve over 1.3 million students across more than 2,500 institutions, with funding derived from a mix of state, local, and federal sources. Federal dollars, administered primarily through the DOE, account for approximately 14% of the state’s K-12 education budget—a figure that, while modest compared to state and local contributions, plays a critical role in supporting vulnerable populations.
Programs like Title I, which provides aid to schools with high percentages of low-income students, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which funds special education, are lifelines for districts like Newark, Camden, and Paterson, where poverty rates are high and local tax bases are strained.
In the 2023-2024 school year, New Jersey received over $1.2 billion in federal education funding, including $650 million in Title I grants and $400 million for special education.
Beyond K-12, the state’s colleges and universities, such as Rutgers, depend on DOE-managed Pell Grants and research funding to support tens of thousands of students and faculty. Any disruption to this flow of money could force immediate budget cuts, staff layoffs, and program reductions, particularly in urban districts already grappling with resource shortages.
Trump’s Plan: A Legal and Practical Tightrope
Trump’s vow to dismantle the DOE “to the maximum extent of legal authority” suggests a multi-pronged strategy. An executive order, potentially signed as early as this week, could freeze hiring, halt new grant disbursements, and redirect existing funds to other agencies or block grants managed by states. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, confirmed on March 3, has already signaled her intent to execute this “final mission,” urging staff to eliminate “bureaucratic bloat” in a memo sent shortly after her swearing-in.
However, the DOE was established by Congress in 1979, and legal experts agree that only an act of Congress can fully dissolve it. Without legislative backing, Trump’s actions would be limited to administrative cuts and restructurings—significant, but not a total shutdown.
For New Jersey, this partial dismantling could still trigger a cascade of challenges.
If federal funding is slashed or delayed, the state would need to either raise taxes, reallocate existing revenues, or cut education spending—none of which are politically or practically straightforward.
Governor Phil Murphy, a Democrat with a strong commitment to public education, would likely resist any federal push to cede control, setting the stage for a contentious standoff.
The Democratic Dilemma: Control and Chaos
New Jersey’s political landscape is dominated by Democrats, who control the governor’s office, both legislative chambers, and most local school boards. Critics of Trump’s plan, including Senator Joe Cryan (D-Union), have warned that cutting DOE funds would be “devastating” for the state, predicting chaos without a clear contingency plan. However, some conservatives argue that removing federal oversight could paradoxically amplify Democratic influence over education, given the party’s entrenched power. Without the DOE’s regulatory framework, New Jersey’s Democratic leadership would gain near-total autonomy over curriculum, funding, and policy—potentially a double-edged sword.
On one hand, this could allow progressive priorities—such as expanded early childhood education, equity initiatives, and climate-focused curricula—to flourish unchecked by federal constraints. New Jersey has already embraced policies like mandatory diversity training and gender identity protections in schools, which Trump has vowed to eliminate nationwide. A DOE rollback might embolden Democrats to double down on these efforts, free from Washington’s interference.
On the other hand, the loss of federal guardrails could destabilize the system. The DOE’s Office of Civil Rights, for instance, enforces anti-discrimination laws and investigates complaints about inequity—roles that might not be adequately replaced at the state level.
In a state with stark racial and economic disparities (e.g., Camden’s 47% child poverty rate versus Princeton’s affluence), the absence of federal oversight could exacerbate inequalities if local politics prioritize wealthier districts. Moreover, the logistical burden of replacing federal programs—hiring staff, drafting new regulations, and securing funding—could overwhelm an already stretched state bureaucracy, leading to the “chaos” critics fear.
Economic and Social Fallout
If Trump succeeds in gutting the DOE’s budget, New Jersey’s urban schools could face immediate crises as New Jersey schools are already feeling the pressure of Murphy’s flawed S2 funding.
Under Murphy’s state plan, districts are closing schools and firing teachers. They are cutting programs and eliminating extracurricular activities.
A 10% reduction in federal funding—roughly $120 million—might translate to hundreds of teacher layoffs, larger class sizes, and canceled after-school programs.
Special education, which relies on IDEA funds for nearly 20% of its costs, could be hit hardest, forcing parents to sue districts for services or seek private alternatives they can’t afford. Rural and suburban districts, less dependent on federal aid, might weather the storm, but the urban-rural divide would widen.
It Gets Worse
Socially, the shift could fuel partisan tensions. Trump’s rhetoric about “radical left” ideologies in schools resonates with some New Jersey Republicans, who might welcome a chance to challenge Democratic dominance. Yet polls suggest most residents value public education and oppose federal cuts—56% of Americans, per a March 3 PBS News poll, believe Trump is rushing changes without considering impacts. A backlash could energize Democrats, but if the system falters under their watch, public trust might erode.
If a Democrat governor wins in November and the Democrat party wins the legislature and senate majorities in 2026, it could be game over for common sense education in New Jersey.
New Jersey’s education system stands at a crossroads. Trump’s push to dismantle the DOE could strip away vital resources, forcing the state to adapt quickly or risk collapse in its most vulnerable districts. Democrats, handed full control, might seize the opportunity to reshape education in their image—potentially advancing progressive goals but also risking mismanagement amid the transition.
