Washington state Democratic Sen. Patty Murray speaks to reporters at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 25, 2025. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, stand behind her. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — More than 30 members of the U.S. Senate Democratic caucus slammed the U.S. Education Department’s plans to shift several responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies in a letter to Secretary Linda McMahon. 

The senators blasted the move as “outrageous,” and “illegal,” saying it circumvented appropriations law — which is how Congress exercises its power of the purse — and would “jeopardize the funding and support that tens of millions of students, teachers, and families across the country rely on.”

Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer led the letter, dated Wednesday. 

Murray is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, Baldwin is the top Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding and Sanders is the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

“This is the latest example of this administration’s complete lack of regard for our laws and its failure to provide the certainty, clarity, and stability that students and schools deserve when it comes to the federal government’s approach and commitment to properly implementing federal education laws and appropriations,” the senators wrote. 

Department dismantling

The Education Department outlined six agreements signed with the departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State. The move drew swift backlash from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups. 

The plan, announced Nov. 18, is part of a larger effort from President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department as the president seeks to send education “back to the states.” Much of the funding and oversight of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

McMahon has defended the move as an effort to cut “bureaucratic bloat.”

But the senators’ letter said the plan will “create even more bureaucracy that states, school districts, and educational institutions across America will have to expend time and resources navigating at the expense of students and families.” 

The lawmakers urged McMahon to “immediately reverse course” and focus her time and attention on “actions that actually help states, school districts and educational institutions improve educational outcomes and support for students.” 

Appropriators object

The senators also pointed out that Congress has not provided the Education Department with the authority to transfer the programs and their associated funding to other agencies. 

They noted that “appropriations law prohibits the transfer of funds to another federal agency unless expressly authorized in appropriations law, which it has not done in this case.” 

The senators also expressed concerns over the loss of expertise from the transfer of services, highlighting the Department of Labor’s greater role in managing the Education Department’s elementary and secondary education programs and higher education grant programs. 

“The Department also provides deep policy expertise to ensure programs support improved student outcomes, such as through expert guidance to colleges and universities to improve college access, retention, and completion through programs like TRIO, GEAR UP, the Postsecondary Student Success Grant Program, and others,” they wrote.

The Federal TRIO Programs include federal outreach and student services programs to help students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, while the Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, or GEAR UP, aim to prepare low-income students for college.

“Now, DOL, who lacks the necessary expertise, is tasked with managing these programs and students will suffer as a result.” 

The lawmakers also criticized the lack of detail the administration has provided about the implementation of the transfers.

“The other federal agencies that will suddenly have significant responsibilities in administering billions in education funding — have provided no information about their roles or their capacity to carry out these programs and activities,” they wrote. 

The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. 

Student protesters shout during a “Hands Off Our Schools” rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education building in Washington, D.C., in April. The same group held a virtual press conference Tuesday to protest President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. (Photo by Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A pair of Democratic lawmakers joined student leaders Tuesday in blasting President Donald Trump’s ongoing efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. 

U.S. Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Lauren Underwood of Illinois, alongside college and high school students from across the United States, rebuked the Trump administration’s plans to shift several of the Education Department’s responsibilities to other Cabinet-level agencies as part of a larger effort to abolish the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Markey said Trump’s and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s “dismantling of the department will have immediate negative consequences for students, for families, for local schools nationwide,” during a virtual press conference organized by “Hands Off Our Schools,” a coalition encompassing student government leaders from Washington, D.C.

“When a parent or superintendent needs support or technical assistance, there will be no one to pick up the phone,” he said. 

McMahon defended the move at a Nov. 20 White House press briefing, saying “these interagency agreements to cut our own bureaucratic bloat are a key step in our efforts to shift educational authority from Washington, D.C., to your state education agency, your local superintendent, your local school board — entities that are accountable to you.” 

But Markey and Underwood said the administration’s moves would have deeply negative impacts.

“The Trump agenda to destroy the Department of Education is not about cutting red tape — it is about enacting cruelty and intentionally breaking the programs that ensure the promise of education is delivered to every single student,” Markey said. 

Underwood said “this administration’s attacks on our Department of Education are part of a much larger assault on the very foundations of our constitutional rights and our democracy.”

She added that “by tearing down the Department of Education, this administration has made an explicit choice to abandon students and families.” 

Underwood — who is a registered nurse — also took aim at the department’s proposal stemming from congressional Republicans’ “big, beautiful” law that would place stricter loan limits on students pursuing graduate nursing programs because they would not fall under the “professional” degree classification. 

She said the effort is “devastating for our already overburdened nursing workforce, and it’s a disaster for our health care system, especially in rural communities.” 

‘Brainless decision’ 

Students from California, Texas, Virginia and Washington, D.C., also slammed the department’s plans to transfer responsibilities to other agencies and potential impacts on marginalized students. 

“This brainless decision to shift programs out of the (Education Department) is targeting the most vulnerable among us,” Darius Wagner, a student at Georgetown University, said, describing the move as “unnecessarily cruel.” 

“Other federal departments that now (bear) this responsibility do not have the resources, staff or expertise to manage these programs and will inevitably mismanage resources that will leave our most vulnerable children behind,” Wagner added.

Ayaan Moledina, a high school student in Austin, Texas, said “dismantling and destroying the department will lead to major consequences on the success of marginalized students.” 

Moledina, who serves as federal policy director of the advocacy group Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), said that “without a federal department, there will be no federal oversight of institutions to guarantee the basic and fundamental rights of students.” 

He added: “There will be no federal assistance for institutions to implement federally mandated programs, putting more of a burden on schools that already have their plates full.” 

Six interagency agreements 

The agreements to transfer several of the Education Department’s responsibilities to four other departments drew swift condemnation from Democratic officials, labor unions and advocacy groups, who questioned the legality of the effort and voiced concerns about the harm that would be imposed on students, families and schools as a result. 

The Education Department clarified that it would “maintain all statutory responsibilities and will continue its oversight of these programs” regarding its six agreements signed with Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services and State.

Prior to the six announced interagency agreements, the agency had already undergone a slew of changes that the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily greenlit in July, including mass layoffs that gutted more than 1,300 employees and a plan to dramatically downsize the department ordered earlier this year.