WASHINGTON — Former U.S. Department of Education officials in Republican and Democratic administrations sounded the alarm Monday over the agency’s efforts to outsource its special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies. 

U.S. Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state convened the former officials, along with advocates and educators, at a virtual press conference to blast those sweeping moves, which are part of a broader effort by President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the 46-year-old Education Department. 

Murray rebuked the transfers as “outrageous” and “completely unacceptable,” noting that while she is fighting “tooth and nail” against any effort to dismantle the agency, she is “especially concerned about what this could mean for all students, especially students with disabilities.” 

The agency in June said the Department of Health and Human Services will administer programs under Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, while civil rights enforcement under its Office for Civil Rights will be transferred to the Department of Justice. 

The Education Department had announced 10 earlier interagency agreements, or IAAs, with HHS, Labor, Interior, State and Treasury, which transfer several of Education’s responsibilities to those agencies.

The department has said it “will continue to perform all statutorily required duties and responsibilities” involving special education programs and civil rights enforcement.

OSERS is responsible for administering the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities. The umbrella unit OSERS includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Programs and the Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

The civil rights office is tasked with investigating complaints from students and families. 

‘Learners, not patients’

Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, said that the transfers “would split apart the offices responsible for making disability rights real in schools, leaving families chasing answers across the federal government instead of getting accountability from one education agency.” 

Neas was the deputy assistant secretary and acting assistant secretary at OSERS during the Biden administration. 

“The stakes have never been higher,” she said. “If we allow the Department of Education to be dismantled, we not only undo decades of progress, we also risk abandoning the promise that every child deserves a chance to try and to succeed.” 

Catherine Lhamon, executive director of the Edley Center on Law and Democracy at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law said the “new interagency agreement between the Department of Education and the Department of Justice is what someone would create if the person were designing a system to fail.” 

Lhamon served as assistant secretary for civil rights during the Obama and Biden administrations. 

“The principal harm of this new agreement is that it guarantees lengthier continued silence from the federal government on the classic kinds of discrimination cases families experience,” Lhamon said. Examples include restraining or secluding students, she said.

It raises “the core question (of) whether students with disabilities have the free appropriate public education to which the law entitles them,” Lhamon added.

Stephanie Smith Lee, co-director of policy and advocacy at National Down Syndrome Congress, pointed out that “IDEA is an education and civil rights law, not a healthcare program.” 

“Students with disabilities are learners, not patients,” added Lee, who served as director of the Office of Special Education Programs under the George W. Bush administration. 

“Moving special education and vocational rehabilitation to the Department of Health and Human Services would separate them from the rest of federal education policy and weaken the expertise and coordinated oversight that students, families and states depend on,” she said. 

Savannah Newhouse, a spokesperson for the Education Department, dismissed the criticism, saying in a statement to States Newsroom that Murray and the former officials were part of a failing status quo. 

“As Senator Murray is well aware, the Department of Education’s interagency partnerships do not alter the Trump Administration’s dedication to students with disabilities and federal civil rights laws,” she wrote. “These agreements simply ensure that well-positioned agencies can support the workload, pool their expertise, and ultimately strengthen protections for students.” 

US House bills ‘dead’ in Senate  

Meanwhile, earlier in July the House Committee on Education and Workforce advanced a package of 10 bills permanently transferring several of Education’s functions to other departments and largely reflecting many of the earlier IAAs. 

Notably, that package does not include any efforts to transfer Education’s responsibilities regarding special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies. 

“As long as this former preschool teacher is a United States senator, every one of those bills is dead on arrival,” Murray said. 

WASHINGTON — A major legislative package that would put into law President Donald Trump’s push to greatly reduce the responsibilities of the U.S. Department of Education advanced out of a U.S. House panel on Wednesday. 

The U.S. House Committee on Education and Workforce approved — nearly along party lines — each of the package’s 10 bills that would permanently transfer several of Education’s functions to other departments. 

The measure, largely reflecting many of the interagency agreements, or IAAs, Education has signed with other agencies, signifies a sweeping effort from Republicans in Congress to carry out the Trump administration’s plan to do away with the 46-year-old department as part of the president’s quest to return education “back to the states.” 

That drive continues, though much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurs at the state and local levels.

But the legislation faces an uncertain fate. Even if passed in the full U.S. House down the line, it would face steep odds in the narrowly GOP-controlled Senate. 

The upper chamber requires at least 60 senators to advance a bill past the filibuster, and Republicans hold just 53 seats.

Rep. Tim Walberg, chair of the House panel, lauded the package as the “first step toward ending the Department of Education’s reign over our nation’s education system,” during his panel’s markup. 

The Michigan Republican added that the legislation advances Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s “vision for an education system that empowers families, students, workers and local communities.” 

McMahon said “today marks a major step by Congressional leaders to cement the Trump Administration’s historic reforms to right-size the federal role in education,” in a statement after the package advanced out of the committee. 

Other departments to take over

Under multiple bills, the Department of Labor would manage Education’s programs surrounding elementary and secondary education; postsecondary education; and career, technical and adult education — mirroring earlier IAAs. 

In another piece of legislation, the Treasury Department would manage Education’s federal student aid functions, a nod to a March agreement Education signed with Treasury to take over its responsibility for collecting on defaulted federal student loan debt.

That agreement marked the first step in a multiphase process toward Treasury taking on Education’s entire roughly $1.7 trillion federal student loan portfolio.

Under other bills in the package, the State Department would manage Education’s international education and foreign language studies programs, as well as its foreign gift and contract reporting — also mirroring earlier agreements. 

Reflecting additional IAAs, the Department of Health and Human Services would manage Education’s accreditation for foreign medical schools; functions regarding child care access for low-income parents in postsecondary education; and family engagement programs for elementary and secondary education. 

The Interior Department would also manage tribal education and job training programs under the package. 

Notably, the 10-bill package does not include any efforts to transfer Education’s responsibilities regarding special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies. 

In perhaps the Trump administration’s most far-reaching attempts yet to dismantle the Education Department, the agency in June said HHS will administer programs under the Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, while civil rights enforcement under its Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, will be transferred to the Department of Justice. 

Rep. Bobby Scott, the top Democrat on the panel, said that the committee’s move to not consider either of the two actions in the package was possibly because “even my colleagues recognize how politically unpalatable such transfers would be.” 

‘Pain and suffering’

Meanwhile, the legislative package drew fierce pushback from congressional Democrats on the committee, who offered up a slew of amendments to the bills in an attempt to block the dismantling. 

Scott, a Virginia Democrat, said “it’s difficult to articulate how impractical these proposals are, to say nothing of the pain and suffering they’ll inflict on students, educators and their communities, if they were to become law.” 

He pointed to the GOP’s objective of stripping down the department as part of its intent to “return education to the states,” saying these proposals “will actually contribute to the creation of miles of bureaucratic red tape, inconsistent education policy and enforcement across the federal government and a significant waste of the taxpayers’ money.” 

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici said the bills under consideration “demonstrate that Republicans in Congress know that the Department of Education lacks the authority to transfer offices and programs to other federal agencies without congressional action, and are now trying to cover for the unlawful actions already taken.” 

The Oregon Democrat, who introduced an impeachment resolution against McMahon in June, added that the secretary “has said that it is her mission to shut down the Department of Education, something she does not have the authority to do, but that is exactly what she is doing, disguised as a series of interagency agreements.” 

Fifteen states on Friday sued the Trump administration to prevent millions of dollars in cuts to school-based mental health funding.

The new lawsuit is part of an ongoing legal battle between Democratic-led states and the U.S. Department of Education over a mental health grant program that Congress established following the 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

At stake is a $1 billion program that offers grants to school districts across the country to help them hire and train more mental health professionals to work in schools.

Democratic attorneys general in 15 states say the Trump administration, in defiance of a December 2025 court order, plans to unlawfully terminate the grants at the end of this month, resulting in millions in lost funding.

“Our children deal with a unique set of problems which arise from growing up in 2026 — from loneliness to substance use disorder to the ever-present fear of violence — and the programs funded through these grants are designed to help them cope and hopefully thrive,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, a Democrat, in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

In 2022, after a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers, Congress allocated $1 billion to the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program to increase the number of school-based mental health professionals.

That funding effort was bipartisan; at the time Republican U.S. senators including John Cornyn of Texas, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina publicly supported it. And within a year, the grants had funded mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 students nationwide.

But in April 2025, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Department of Education told grantees the funding would be halted because their programs conflicted with Trump administration priorities. At that time, the grants were supporting efforts in 49 states to prepare thousands of mental health professionals to work in K-12 schools.

Trump administration officials told the media that the grants were cut over what the administration saw as connections to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

A coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general sued last July, and a court ruled in their favor, ordering the Trump administration to stop the grant discontinuation. In the months since the order, the education department has threatened to withhold funding or terminate the grants altogether.

The Democratic attorneys general said they filed the new lawsuit to cover gaps in the previous court order that could allow the Trump administration to follow through on its desire to halt the funding.

“The courts have repeatedly ruled that the Trump Administration does not have the power to arbitrarily revoke grant funding that provides critical mental health services to our students,” said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, in a statement about joining the lawsuit.

“Still, the federal government continues its attempts to terminate funding.”

Stateline reached out to the U.S. Department of Education for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Attorneys general participating in the lawsuit are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org

WASHINGTON — Students pursuing several advanced degree programs can now access higher loan caps, but the temporary relief has ushered in a wave of uncertainty amid an ongoing legal battle.  

Graduate-level programs such as nursing, occupational therapy and speech-language pathology are, for now, considered “professional” degrees by the U.S. Department of Education after a court order in late June halted the agency’s new “professional” definition while a legal challenge unfolds.

That definition had limited the number of advanced degrees eligible for higher annual and lifetime loan limits to just 11 fields, while excluding several programs, such as nursing.

In response to U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell’s interim ruling, the department temporarily expanded the list of degrees considered “professional” to 29 fields, per guidance given to institutions. 

Pushback from Trump administration

But the Education Department said it was confident its definition is “lawful” and vowed to keep defending the regulations. 

The agency also stressed in its guidance that the temporary “professional” designations “are provided solely to facilitate implementation of the Court’s order and may change as litigation in the case proceeds.”

A department spokesperson, speaking on background, declined to comment on whether the department would appeal the ruling. 

The department said in its guidance that while the case continues, institutions may wish to consider limiting loan amounts to the graduate-level caps for programs temporarily deemed “professional” in an effort to “mitigate potential disruption to student borrowers resulting from changes in program classification that may arise from the ongoing litigation.” 

The programs on the expanded list from the department include: veterinary medicine; law; divinity/ministry; rabbinical studies; clinical psychology; counseling psychology; school psychology; clinical child psychology; health/medical psychology; family psychology; forensic psychology; clinical, counseling and applied psychology; chiropractic; audiology; speech-language pathology; dentistry; anesthesiologist assistant; physician associate/assistant; athletic training; medicine; osteopathic medicine; podiatry; optometry; pharmacy; occupational therapy; physical therapy; registered nursing; nurse anesthetist; and nursing practice. 

On the flip side, the department identified several programs that may have been considered “professional” prior to the court’s ruling but no longer carry the status while the court order is in place, such as theology, pharmaceutical sciences, environmental psychology, and clinical and industrial drug development. 

Schools ‘not sure what to do’

Denise Morelli, of counsel at Sligo Law Group, a firm made up of former Education Department attorneys, said the department’s late June guidance lacks clarity, especially in spelling out any repercussions for schools and students if the agency prevails in court and can keep its “professional” degree definition.

“I do think that has an impact on schools and students because schools are, kind of, not sure what to do because now … these people in these programs are allowed to have the higher loans, according to the department, but the department’s not saying they can keep them,” said Morelli, a former attorney for the Office of the General Counsel at the department. 

“You could be partway through the program, the department prevails, now the student has to get their loan amount cut, and it could also affect their annual limits, so it puts both students and schools in a very precarious position right now,” she added. 

Student loan system overhaul

The new definition is part of President Donald Trump’s administration’s sweeping overhaul of the federal student loan system stemming from the GOP’s 2025 “big, beautiful” law. Most provisions in the overhaul took effect July 1. 

Part of the regulations axed a program allowing for unlimited borrowing for graduate and professional students and set new caps on federal student loans, with much different limits based on whether a degree is deemed “professional.” 

Now, graduate student loans face a $20,500 annual cap and $100,000 lifetime limit. Professional student loans are subject to a $50,000 yearly limit and $200,000 aggregate cap. 

Lawsuits crop up

The department’s new “professional” degree definition prompted a handful of legal challenges against the administration, including the suit that sparked Howell’s June order. 

That case stems from a pair of combined challenges brought by a total of eight groups representing people in fields outside of the department’s new “professional” definition. 

One of the lawsuits was brought in May by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners; the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; the American Association of Colleges of Nursing; the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health; the National Education Association; and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. 

The PA Education Association and the American Academy of Physician Associates filed the other lawsuit in June. 

WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Education’s new definition of “professional” fields of study, which set stricter borrowing caps for graduate students pursuing certain degrees.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell specifically halts the department’s new definition of “professional” degrees, which was limited to 11 fields and would impose lower loan caps for groups not included in its definition, including nursing, teaching and social work. 

The ruling, which covers two consolidated lawsuits, came just a week before the provision was slated to take effect July 1. It marks a setback for a key part of President Donald Trump’s administration’s forthcoming overhaul of the federal student loan system. 

The department finalized regulations, published May 1, that implement sweeping changes outlined in the GOP’s “big, beautiful” law, including new caps on federal student loans, with different limits based on whether a degree was “professional.” 

But it overreached by narrowing what degrees qualified as professional, Howell wrote, saying Congress intended to keep the definition in place when the law passed in July 2025.

“The Rule is likely contrary to law,” Howell wrote. “The Rule’s definition of ‘professional degree,’ and thus the category of students benefiting from the high loan caps, is likely narrower (than) what Congress intended.”

But she declined to halt the department from enforcing the forthcoming loan caps because they were written into the law. 

Howell wrote that “this litigation cannot remedy plaintiffs’ primary frustration over the elimination of uncapped borrowing to pursue graduate education and the concomitant benefits of enabling more students from working families to earn a graduate degree in a chosen career field and attracting students more broadly to enter the American workforce in fields understaffed and in areas underserved.” 

Challenge from health professionals

Wednesday’s ruling stems from a pair of combined challenges by associations representing people in fields that do not fall under the new “professional” definition and would thus face lower annual and lifetime borrowing caps. 

One suit was filed in May by the American Association of Nurse Practitioners; the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners; the American Association of Colleges of Nursing; the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health; the National Education Association; and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. 

The other lawsuit was filed earlier in June by the PA Education Association and the American Academy of Physician Associates. 

In the May suit, the challengers argued that “the final rule’s definition of ‘professional degree’ excludes many degree programs that prepare students for a specific profession, and that may qualify as a professional degree under the 2007 regulatory definition adopted by Congress, including degrees in nursing, education, public health, and marriage and family therapy.” 

Unlimited borrowing eliminated

Part of the regulations eliminate a key loan program for graduate and professional students that allowed for unlimited borrowing and establish new annual and aggregate loan limits for those students.  

Graduate student loans will be capped at $20,500 annually and have a $100,000 aggregate limit, while professional student loans would have a $50,000 annual limit and $200,000 aggregate cap. 

But the programs within the department’s “professional” category and thus subject to the higher loan cap are limited to: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry, theology and clinical psychology. 

In response to a request for comment, the department said in a statement it was “reviewing the order and will take appropriate action,” adding that “we look forward to implementing the RISE student loan provisions and offering new, affordable repayment plans on July 1.” 

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Education announced sweeping efforts Tuesday to outsource its special education programs and civil rights enforcement to other agencies, in another major step by President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle the department.

The Department of Health and Human Services will administer programs under the Education Department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, or OSERS, while civil rights enforcement under Education’s Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, will be transferred to the Department of Justice. 

The move follows 10 earlier interagency agreements, or IAAs, with the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior, State and Treasury that transfer several of Education’s responsibilities to those agencies.

The Education Department clarified in fact sheets that in the agreements announced Tuesday, it “will continue to perform all statutorily required duties and responsibilities.”

“The Trump Administration has been clear: as we scale back federal micromanagement when it hinders success, we are equally committed to bolstering the efficacy of federal oversight where it is essential,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement Tuesday.

The administration has sought to do away with the 46-year-old department as part of Trump’s quest to return education “back to the states.” That push continues despite much of the oversight and funding of schools already occurring at the state and local levels. 

Congress created the Department of Education, and only Congress has the authority to abolish the agency. 

Special education

On a background call with reporters, a senior department official said OSERS “will maintain its independent statutory functions without interruption to vigorously enforce compliance with all of OSERS programs.” 

OSERS is responsible for administering the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which guarantees a free public education for students with disabilities. The umbrella unit OSERS includes the Office of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Programs and the Rehabilitation Services Administration. 

The official added that “students will not lose any rights, including their right to a free appropriate public education,” adding that “no agreement can alter the rights that students with disabilities are afforded under federal law.” 

“In coordination with and at the direction of OSERS, HHS will support meaningful stakeholder outreach; grant administration; enforcement, compliance, and monitoring activities; annual performance determinations and assessments; collection, reporting, and analyzing of data for monitoring compliance; and drawdowns of Federal funds,” according to a fact sheet. 

Civil rights oversight

Meanwhile, Education’s agreement with the DOJ is intended to “support and bolster the federal government’s enforcement of federal civil rights laws,” a senior department official said. 

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, is tasked with investigating civil rights complaints from students and families. 

Under the agreement, “OCR will utilize the Civil Rights Division to evaluate, investigate and resolve complaints filed under the laws enforced by OCR,” the official said. 

The official also stressed that under the interagency agreement, OCR “retains management and leadership of OCR in accordance with federal law.” 

Education will also partner with the DOJ on student privacy protection, in which the Justice Department will “review complaints alleging privacy act violations, conduct necessary investigations and recommend potential resolutions,” per a fact sheet.

In another agreement, the DOJ will “provide technical assistance” in training and advisory services regarding the desegregation of public schools, according to a fact sheet.  

‘This isn’t efficiency — it’s chaos’

The announcement sparked fierce condemnation from Democratic members of Congress, labor unions and advocacy groups Tuesday. 

Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, the union representing Education Department workers, said the interagency agreements regarding special ed programs and civil rights enforcement “will leave our most vulnerable students and families who have been shut out of our education system without the services they need and without protection when they face discrimination,” in a Tuesday statement. 

“This isn’t efficiency — it’s chaos,” Gittleman added. “Secretary McMahon is yet again targeting historically underserved students, eroding public trust, and sowing dysfunction for the federal employees who are trying to do their jobs on behalf of the public.” 

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said that “instead of helping kids get a great education, this administration is spending its time, energy, and taxpayer resources fixated on where employees sit and illegally trying to shutter the Department of Education,” in a Tuesday statement.

“It’s an outrageous betrayal that undoes decades of hard-won progress for students,” Murray added. “More kids with disabilities will be denied the education they are entitled to by law, and more college students who were harassed or assaulted will go without the justice they are owed.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, one of the largest teachers unions in the country, said the decision “will have dire, real-world consequences.” 

“Congress — the only body that can legally take such actions — has refused to follow the whims of the White House when it comes to abolishing the Education Department,” Weingarten said. “And parents, educators, students, and the disability and civil rights communities are rising up — and will fight in every way possible to reverse this in the courts, at the ballot box and in the court of public opinion.”