SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
student loans
Knowledge is Power—Why Would the Government Want to Dismantle Education?
Dismantling the Department of Education is not just a political talking point; it is an existential threat to millions of students who depend on federal protections and funding.
Feb 23, 2025
Education has long been called the great equalizer—a fundamental tool for upward mobility and societal progress. Yet, the Trump administration is advocating for the complete dismantling of the federal Department of Education, or ED, a move that would profoundly harm millions of students, especially students with disabilities, those living in poverty, and those facing discrimination.
Eliminating the ED would strip away crucial protections, defund essential programs, and exacerbate the inequalities that already plague American education. It’s not just bad policy; it’s a direct attack on the very idea that knowledge should be accessible to all.
For my family, education was never just about personal achievement—it was about survival, progress, and the ability to dream beyond one’s circumstances. My paternal grandparents grew up in a small village in Kolkata, India, in large families with limited means. My grandfather, one of 11 children, grew up in a mud house and did not own a pair of shoes until high school. Yet, thanks to India’s government-funded education system, he and my grandmother attended public schools from kindergarten through their PhDs without paying a dime. Their access to education wasn’t determined by wealth or geography—it was a right.
President Donald Trump himself has said we “have to learn from history.” So why is the administration actively working to undo the progress we’ve made?
That right changed their lives. After immigrating to the United States in 1966, my grandfather eventually became the first Indian-born president of an American university. My late grandmother, too, built a career in academia, inspiring generations of students, including me. They passed down their belief in education’s power to transform lives, a belief my mother upheld when she ensured I attended one of the best public schools available in our Midwestern state. Today, my own career is focused on ensuring that all children have access to the same life-changing opportunities that shaped my family’s story.
That’s why I am deeply alarmed at the administration’s apparent push to destroy the very institution that safeguards equitable access to education in America. The plan to abolish the ED and send all education back to the states would be calamitous. While states and localities already control most aspects of education, the ED plays an essential role in leveling the playing field. It ensures federal funding for students in low-income areas (Title I), enforces protections for students with disabilities (IDEA), and holds states accountable for upholding civil rights in schools.
Without the ED, low-income students will lose critical support. Title I funding currently supports approximately 2 in 3 public schools in the United States. Eliminating this funding would lead to devastating budget cuts, staff layoffs, and program eliminations in schools serving low-income communities. Additionally, students with disabilities will be left behind. The IDEA program currently serves about 7.5 million children aged 3 to 21, accounting for 15% of all public school students. Without ED oversight and funding, these students may not receive the specialized services they need, hindering their educational progress and future opportunities. Civil rights enforcement will also weaken. Historically, federal intervention has been necessary to combat racial segregation, gender discrimination, and unequal educational opportunities. Without ED oversight, there will be no clear mechanism to address discrimination complaints, leaving marginalized students vulnerable.
The elimination of the ED would be particularly harmful to children in government systems. Those in state foster care could lose hard-won protections that ensure they receive a consistent education in their home communities instead of being bounced from school to school and are provided with a course of study appropriate for their age and abilities. They are also far more likely to require specialized educational services—and the federal funding to pay for it. In addition, the ED plays an important role in supporting English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs so immigrant students attain proficiency and meet academic standards.
Finally, without the ED, higher education will become less accessible. Millions of college students depend on federal loans and Pell Grants, which are administered by the department. Without them, higher education will become an impossible dream for many. These consequences won’t just affect individual students—they will reverberate across society, deepening inequality and economic disparity for generations to come.
America’s education system is far from perfect. Teachers are underpaid and overworked, standardized testing is flawed, and school funding is wildly uneven. But abandoning federal oversight is not the solution—it’s a retreat into an era when education was a privilege reserved for certain groups and not a right.
Before the ED’s creation in 1979, education was almost entirely a state and local matter, and the disparities were staggering. Many students—particularly in the South, in rural areas, and in low-income communities—had little access to quality education. Black students faced legal segregation and underfunded schools. Girls had fewer opportunities in STEM fields and less access to higher education. Students with disabilities were often denied an education entirely. Federal actions, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, played a critical role in correcting these injustices.
President Donald Trump himself has said we “have to learn from history.” So why is the administration actively working to undo the progress we’ve made? If we allow education to be completely dictated by state governments—many of which are already erasing and rewriting history curricula—will we even be able to learn from our past at all?
Dismantling the Department of Education is not just a political talking point; it is an existential threat to millions of students who depend on federal protections and funding. If we want America to be a land of opportunity, we must fight to preserve and strengthen the institutions that make upward mobility possible. That means investing in teachers, improving curricula, and expanding access to education—not gutting the very foundation of educational equity. If you still aren’t convinced, take a walk past your local school and remember what it felt like to sit in those classrooms. Talk with a child about what topics excite them in school. Ask a grandparent how education changed their life. Then, truly consider what it would mean for these opportunities to be stripped away.
Knowledge is power; why would our own government want to take it away?
Keep ReadingShow Less
Right-Wing Supreme Court Keeps Pause on Biden's Student Debt Relief Effort
"I reckon the U.S. Supreme Court does not like millions of people being able to afford to make payments on their student loans," said one journalist who had benefited from the SAVE program.
Aug 28, 2024
Millions of student loan borrowers whose monthly payments had been reduced by U.S. President Joe Biden's latest attempt to achieve debt relief were thrown into limbo Wednesday as the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a sweeping suspension of the president's policy.
After several Republican-led states filed lawsuits against the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled last month that the program should be paused while it evaluated the merits of the case.
The Biden administration had asked the high court to clear the way for SAVE to go back into effect, allowing 8 million Americans enrolled in the program to make monthly loan payments based on their incomes.
Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center, said the Supreme Court "bought into the 8th Circuit's legal fiction that pausing affordable payments is 'preserving the status quo,'" issuing a ruling he denounced as "bullshit."
Under SAVE, which has already cleared debts for 400,000 borrowers, the Biden administration reduced monthly payments for undergraduate loans to 5% of the borrower's discretionary income, down from 10%. Loans of $12,000 or less were to be canceled after 10 years instead of 20-25 years, as long as the borrower made required payments.
The administration argued that the program was in accordance with a 1993 law allowing the secretary of education to establish "income contingent repayment" plans based on "the appropriate portion of the annual income of the borrower."
After the lower court's earlier ruling, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said the court had rejected "a practice of providing loan forgiveness that goes back 30 years."
Ashton Pittman, an editor for the Mississippi Free Press, said the program had reduced his monthly student loan payments so that he was "finally able to reliably make them each month."
"But I reckon the U.S. Supreme Court does not like millions of people being able to afford to make payments on their student loans," said Pittman.
The Debt Collective, a national student loan borrowers union, suggested the latest ruling—which comes over a year after the Supreme Court struck down a broader student debt relief plan from Biden—shows that the fight for debt forgiveness cannot be won through the federal court system.
The Debt Collective has joined progressive lawmakers and other groups in calling for the Department of Education to cut ties with the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), which services federal student loans and which Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey said would lose revenue if student debt cancellation is allowed to move forward.
"Biden is losing in court because he is not being politically or legally savvy," said the group after the 8th Circuit ruling was announced. "He should fire MOHELA and issue cancellation swiftly and automatically through an executive order and issue pause."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Leads Senate Dems in Push to Strengthen Student Loan Debt Relief
"We must act boldly so that the millions of Americans who are struggling to pay for basic necessities are not crushed by mountains of debt for getting a college education," said the Vermont senator.
May 21, 2024
Applauding the Biden administration for its proposal of "historic" methods of canceling student debt for millions of Americans after President Joe Biden's original plan was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday led members of the Democratic caucus in submitting a public comment with suggestions for strengthening the new proposal.
"We support the department's efforts to provide significant pathways to relief for student loan borrowers. These efforts are critical, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court's extreme, overreaching decision to strike down the Biden administration's original student debt relief plan," wrote the senators, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).
The administration's plan—which would entirely wipe out the student loan debt held by 4 million people, provide at least $5,000 in debt relief to 10 million borrowers, and eliminate the interest of 23 million more—the letter states, "would undoubtedly eliminate the crushing student debt burden for borrowers who have long been waiting for needed relief."
But with 43 million people in the U.S. owing a collective $1.6 trillion in federal student loans—an amount that has prevented many from purchasing homes, starting businesses, and having families—the senators said the government must "act boldly so that the tens of millions of Americans who are struggling to pay the rent, put food on the table, and pay for the basic necessities of life are not crushed by a mountain of debt for getting a college education."
The lawmakers proposed:
- Eliminating all of the excess interest that has accrued over what a person originally borrowed, regardless of the repayment plan they are on or what their income is;
- Discharging debt for borrowers who have been in repayment for over two decades on a rolling basis, so no borrower has to delay or forego retirement because of their student loan debt;
- Providing relief to borrowers who have been victims of servicing errors or misconduct; and
- Providing debt relief to every eligible borrower automatically.
Eliminating excess interest would "help millions of borrowers get off the never-ending treadmill of student loan repayment and help them make progress toward eliminating their debt," said the senators. "Student loan debt should never be a life sentence."
Sanders (I-Vt.) and his colleagues also recommended full debt cancellation for borrowers who have repaid enough debt to cover their original principal, regardless of their income.
The lawmakers urged the Department of Education to promptly release its proposed final rule for debt relief for people experiencing economic hardship, which could "provide needed relief to borrowers not otherwise captured in this proposal."
"Every day spent without relief is another day borrowers experiencing economic hardship face unnecessary financial burdens," reads the letter.
The Biden administration has said it plans to finalize its student debt proposal by this coming fall, when Americans will vote in the general election. Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has opposed student debt cancellation.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular