The second Trump Administration is carrying out the President’s executive order to close the U.S. Department of Education.[REF] To manage that process, Education Department officials have entered into interagency agreements (IAAs) with other Cabinet-level agencies to share responsibility for certain federal education programs. Members of Congress are now advancing a series of proposals that would codify 10 of those agreements. If the Education Department were sunset, these bills would allow selected federal programs to continue under other agencies.
These agreements and new legislative proposals do not change Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides taxpayer money to districts serving children in low-income areas and is the largest spending item for K–12 schools in the federal budget. The Education Department’s fiscal year (FY) 2027 budget includes funding for Title I and for services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for children with special needs.[REF]
Education Department policymakers have also preserved the enforcement of civil rights statutes. On June 16, the agency entered into an IAA with the U.S. Department of Justice under which DOJ will assume a larger role in civil rights investigations and enforcement as Education maintains its statutory responsibilities.[REF]
As of this writing, the Education Department has signed 14 IAAs with federal agencies to share implementation of education programs. On July 15, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce approved a package of proposals that would codify 10 of these agreements and transfer authority from the Department of Education to the other federal agencies.[REF]
Proposals Codifying IAAs
Federal lawmakers are considering provisions to right-size the Department of Education. Collectively, these proposals would create conditions for the department’s closure.
H.R. 9607 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act)[REF] and H.R. 9610 (Less Bureaucracy, Better K–12 Education Act).[REF] These proposals would codify interagency agreements between the Education Department and the U.S. Department of Labor. However, as with the rest of the proposals in the legislative package, the responsibilities for the programs would be transferred from the Department of Education to the new agency and no longer simply shared between the offices.
These two legislative proposals contain provisions that would transfer federal adult and family literacy services such as Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; career and technical education (CTE) programs including the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006; and a set of initiatives operated by the Education Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education including state literacy and civics grants.[REF] The Labor Department already offers workforce training and professional development for job applicants, and this transfer would reduce the level of duplicative federal activity.
- H.R. 9611 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act).[REF] This proposal would codify an IAA between the Department of Education and Department of Labor that transfers from Education to Labor the implementation of postsecondary programs including provisions governing Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); TRIO programs (efforts to help low-income and first-generation college students); and military veteran education services.[REF]
- H.R. 9605 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act).[REF] Under this proposal, the Education Department would transfer responsibility for review of medical standards for foreign medical schools to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).[REF] The proposal would codify HHS’s oversight of the National Committee on Foreign Medical Education and Accreditation, which is authorized by statute under the Higher Education Act.
- H.R. 9604 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act).[REF] Under this proposal, the Education Department would transfer services for students living on tribal lands to the U.S. Department of the Interior. These programs include (among others) professional development grants, grants for Alaskan and Hawaiian natives, and CTE programs for these populations.[REF]
- H.R. 9606 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act).[REF] This proposal would transfer oversight of child care programs for the children of college students from the Department of Education to HHS.
H.R. 9603 (Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act)[REF] and H.R. 9602 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Gift Transparency Act).[REF] H.R. 9603 would transfer responsibilities for international postsecondary programs, including the Fulbright–Hays program (a scholarship program for U.S. students to study in other countries), from the Department of Education to the U.S. Department of State. The bill would also sunset the Institute for International Public Policy, which promotes the training of ethnic minority individuals for work in foreign service.
H.R. 9602 would transfer responsibilities for foreign gift reporting requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act from Education to State. This oversight is essential to taxpayers because foreign entities exert influence on postsecondary institutions through financial gifts. China is the second-largest foreign financial contributor to U.S. universities, and students have reported contact from Chinese interests that try to extract information about research that students are performing.[REF]
- H.R. 9608 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act).[REF] This proposal would transfer authority for school safety programs and services that attempt to help school officials communicate with and engage parents from the Department of Education to HHS.[REF]
- H.R. 9609 (Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act).[REF] This last proposal would transfer oversight and operation of student loans from the Education Department to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, codifying an IAA established in March 2026.[REF] Because student loans account for approximately two-thirds of the Department of Education’s budget, this proposal is obviously one of enormous consequence for students nationwide. Treasury already has responsibilities for part of the student loan system, and moving oversight to this agency would consolidate authority for these loans in a single federal office.
Critics of efforts to close the Department of Education argue that the interagency agreements merely split responsibilities across multiple agencies.[REF] These legislative proposals answer this claim by transferring full responsibilities for programs from Education to other offices. These transfers can serve as a model for future proposals to shift full authority over remaining initiatives out of the Department of Education.
Others who oppose closing the department say that Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is “compromising the ability of the department to fulfill its duties.”[REF] As stated above, however, the Trump Administration has included taxpayer spending on statutory education programs such as Title I and the IDEA in the education agency’s budget. The legislation codifying interagency agreements demonstrates that Education officials are preventing confusion and instability among participants as the department is sunset.
Policy Recommendations
Members of Congress should:
- Continue to advance legislation that codifies existing interagency agreements between the Department of Education and other federal agencies.
- Consider measures to formalize the remaining agreements, including a proposal to transfer responsibility for federal education civil rights enforcement to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Conclusion
The Department of Education’s recent interagency agreements have initiated a process by which responsibilities can gradually be transferred to other agencies without jeopardizing continuity for students, schools, and program participants. Instead of eliminating programs, these agreements have allowed federally authorized services to continue during the transition. The proposed legislation would take the next step in closing the department by permanently reassigning those functions, reducing the Department of Education’s role and moving its responsibilities to other agencies.
Jonathan Butcher is Acting Director of the Center for Education Policy and Will Skillman Senior Research Fellow in Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation.
Facts Only
* Education Department is carrying out an executive order to close the U.S. Department of Education.
* Interagency agreements (IAAs) were entered into with other Cabinet-level agencies to share responsibility for federal education programs.
* Members of Congress are advancing proposals to codify 10 of these agreements.
* The proposed legislation would allow selected federal programs to continue under other agencies if the Education Department is sunsetted.
* Title I funding and services under IDEA remain unaffected by these proposals.
* The Education Department entered an IAA with the U.S. Department of Justice regarding civil rights enforcement.
* The Department has signed 14 IAAs with federal agencies.
* H.R. 9607 and H.R. 9610 propose codifying agreements between Education and the Department of Labor, transferring responsibilities for adult literacy services, CTE programs, and state grants.
* H.R. 9611 proposes transferring postsecondary program implementation, including HBCU provisions, TRIO programs, and military veteran education services, between Education and Labor.
* H.R. 9605 proposes transferring the review of medical standards for foreign medical schools to HHS.
* H.R. 9604 proposes transferring services for students on tribal lands, including grants and CTE programs, to the Department of the Interior.
* H.R. 9606 proposes transferring oversight of child care programs for college students from Education to HHS.
* H.R. 9603 proposes transferring responsibilities for international postsecondary programs, including Fulbright–Hays, from Education to the Department of State.
* H.R. 9602 proposes transferring foreign gift reporting requirements under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act from Education to the State.
* H.R. 9609 proposes transferring oversight and operation of student loans from Education to the Department of the Treasury.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The process described involves structuring a potential departmental closure by systematically reallocating functional responsibilities through interagency agreements and proposed legislation. The primary tension lies between streamlining federal operations, as argued by proponents seeking efficiency via transfers, and maintaining continuity for specific statutory obligations, particularly those related to taxpayer-funded programs like Title I and IDEA. The framework suggests that the current structure is managed through negotiated sharing (IAAs), which can be solidified or further altered by legislative action targeting a sunset.
The pattern observed involves framing administrative restructuring as necessary simplification, where functional dispersal across agencies is presented not as division of labor but as enhanced accountability or consolidation. The proposed transfers—moving functions related to workforce development and higher education to the Department of Labor, HHS, Interior, State, and Treasury—suggest a pattern of centralizing specific domains under existing executive structures, which inherently shifts focus from a unified educational mandate to agency-specific expertise.
The crucial implication is how responsibility shifts affect accountability for vulnerable populations. While proponents argue transfers reduce duplication, critics assert that dissolving the core department risks destabilizing statutory commitments. The ongoing existence of funding streams like Title I and IDEA provides a factual anchor against purely structural arguments. The proposed legislative pathway functions as a mechanism to achieve bureaucratic reduction by redefining institutional boundaries rather than eliminating substantive program support. When examining the movement of authority concerning student aid (H.R. 9609) or international programs (H.R. 9603), one must consider whether this procedural restructuring genuinely enhances service delivery or merely repositions administrative burden across agencies while maintaining the overall scope of federal investment for students. What specific metrics would determine if these transfers achieve the stated goal of reducing duplication without sacrificing the institutional coherence required to serve diverse student needs?