We previously examined President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (DOE, or Department) and, in his words, return “education back to the states.” Since that time, two significant developments have unfolded that could bring this proposal closer to reality.
The Supreme Court’s Green Light
Fully dismantling the DOE and reallocating its core functions would almost certainly require congressional approval — a process that would take considerable time. To make a more immediate impact, however, the Trump administration opted for a different strategy: implementing a large-scale reduction-in-force (RIF) that targeted roughly one-third of the Department’s workforce.
The move quickly drew legal challenges. A federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the proposed cuts, finding they were so sweeping that they rendered the Department “effectively unable” to carry out its statutory responsibilities. The preliminary injunction remained in effect until July 14, 2025, when the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to lift the injunction. The decision cleared the way for the administration to proceed with its plan, which is expected to eliminate approximately 1,400 positions — undoubtedly one of the most significant workforce reductions in the Department’s history.
“Returning Education to the States”
After the Supreme Court’s ruling, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wasted no time in launching her “Returning Education to the States” tour, beginning in Baton Rouge. In recent years, Louisiana has posted steady improvements in areas such as graduation rates, early literacy initiatives, and career-readiness pathways. By spotlighting Louisiana as her first stop, Secretary McMahon sought to frame the state as a proof point for state-driven reform – a signal that local governance, when paired with innovation, can deliver meaningful results.
The blueprint for McMahon’s vision is the “BRAVE” plan (Back to Basics, Redesign High Schools, Accelerate Parental Rights, Value Teaching Professionals, Expand Education Freedom). The plan is designed as a roadmap for how states might reimagine their education systems with fewer federal constraints. Framing the tour as a positive turning point, McMahon stressed that “education is not one size fits all” and described states as “laboratories of innovation.” The underlying narrative is one of optimism: decentralization, in this view, will empower states to tailor solutions that fit their unique demographics, economies, and cultures.
Louisiana at a Crossroads
As mentioned in our previous article, the reduction-in-force is the latest chapter in a long history of efforts to dismantle the DOE, which has faced calls for elimination since its inception. Yet this moment marks a dramatic escalation, and Louisiana in particular will need to take deliberate steps to safeguard the progress it has made.
Key considerations include:
- Equity and Accountability. Federal oversight, including civil rights enforcement, Title I, IDEA, and protections for low-income or disabled students, have served as protection for educational equity. Rolling this back risks leaving vulnerable populations without recourse. Communities and educators warn that curtailed federal oversight could widen disparities between groups of students.
- Workforce Readiness. Louisiana’s success is driven by tailored, state-level initiatives. However, those successes are often supported by federal infrastructure such as student aid programs, teacher training resources, and accountability standards. Weakening or reducing these programs threatens to undermine the pipeline of skilled graduates and destabilize the support systems that underpin long-term workforce readiness.
- Local Empowerment vs. Resource Gaps. On one hand, Louisiana may gain more flexibility to customize education policy. On the other, reduced funding and oversight could exacerbate inequalities between districts, especially in rural or under-resourced areas. Without strategic and equitable distribution of resources, state control may nurture an uneven playing field.
Moving forward, Louisiana must commit to investing in its own programs through state funding and policy safeguards. In the absence of federal oversight, the state will need to establish robust mechanisms to protect civil rights and ensure that all students – including those with disabilities or attending high-poverty schools – receive meaningful support. While decentralization offers flexibility, Louisiana should advocate for models that balance local autonomy with baseline national standards, achieving consistency without unnecessary bureaucracy. Collaboration among Louisiana’s educators, lawmakers, and counterparts in other states will also be essential for sharing best practices, driving improvement, and avoiding regression as federal programs and oversight decline.
Louisiana now stands at a crossroads. One path allows the state’s potential newfound autonomy to sustain and accelerate recent academic progress. The other risks exposing fragile systems and deepening inequities in the absence of federal support and oversight. The challenge for state leaders, educators, and communities will be to ensure that local control continues to strengthen the State’s long-term educational goals.
