To abolish the Department of Education and to provide funding directly to States for elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes.

Bill Number

H.R. 2691

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Education

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-04-07: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

Last Updated

2026-05-20T08:08:19Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

This bill, H.R. 2691, aims to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education (a federal agency overseeing education policy and funding) and redirect federal funding for elementary and secondary education (K-12 schooling) directly to states through block grants. It seeks to give states and parents more control over education decisions while preserving certain federal student aid programs.

Key Provisions

• Abolishment of the Department: The Department of Education would be dissolved 30 days after the bill becomes law, terminating nearly all its programs (defined as "applicable programs"—any initiatives administered by the department or its secretary before the abolishment date).
• Exceptions for Student Aid Programs:
• The Federal Pell Grant program (provides need-based grants to college students) and the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan Program (offers low-interest loans for higher education) would continue but be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury (the top official at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which handles federal finances).
• Sense of Congress Statement: Expresses a non-binding view that states should use non-federal funds to encourage competition and parental choice in education, emphasizing parents' rights to decide the best schooling for their children.
• Block Grants to States:
• The Secretary of the Treasury would allocate funds to states for K-12 education based on each state's share of total federal individual income taxes paid by its residents (calculated with input from the Internal Revenue Service commissioner).
• States must use these funds solely to support elementary and secondary education, with flexibility in how they distribute and apply the money.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Elimination of Federal Oversight: Currently, the Department of Education manages and enforces federal education laws, standards, and funding (e.g., under laws like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act). This bill would end that role for most programs, removing federal requirements, guidelines, and accountability measures for K-12 funding.
• Funding Shift: Federal education dollars for K-12 would move from formula-based or competitive grants administered by the department to simple block grants tied to state income tax contributions, giving states unrestricted use within the broad category of K-12 support.
• Program Transfers: Higher education aid programs would shift from education-specific administration to the Treasury Department, potentially integrating them with broader financial systems but altering their specialized oversight.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Education's roughly 4,000 employees and $80 billion annual budget would be eliminated or redistributed, streamlining federal operations but requiring other agencies (like Treasury) to absorb new responsibilities. This could reduce federal bureaucracy but create short-term administrative challenges.
• On Citizens: Parents and students might gain more local options for schooling due to state-level flexibility, potentially increasing choices like charter schools or vouchers. However, it could lead to uneven education quality across states, affecting low-income or rural families if states prioritize differently. College students relying on Pell Grants or Direct Loans would see minimal direct change, though program management might become less education-focused.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic K-12 funding; however, it could indirectly affect U.S. global standing in education metrics (e.g., international assessments like PISA) if federal coordination on standards ends.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• States and Local Education Agencies: Primary beneficiaries, gaining full control over K-12 funding without federal strings attached, allowing them to tailor programs to local needs.
• Parents and Students: Empowered through emphasized parental choice, but potentially facing variability in education access depending on state policies.
• Educators and Schools: Could see simplified funding but lose federal support for programs like teacher training or special education services.
• Federal Government and Taxpayers: Reduced federal role in education, with Treasury taking on new duties; taxpayers in high-income states might see proportionally larger allocations.
• Higher Education Institutions: Unaffected for K-12 but reliant on the transferred Pell and loan programs for student enrollment and affordability.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The bill would require repealing or amending numerous existing laws (e.g., the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979) that established the department, potentially leading to lawsuits over contract disruptions, employee rights, or abrupt program terminations. "Applicable programs" exclusion ensures continuity for key aid but might create gaps in other areas like civil rights enforcement in schools (e.g., under Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination).
• Constitutional Implications: Aligns with a view of education as a state responsibility under the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment (reserving powers to states), reducing federal involvement and promoting decentralization. However, it could raise questions about federal treaty obligations or interstate equity if tax-based funding disadvantages poorer states.
• Political Implications: Represents a push for limited government and states' rights, likely appealing to conservatives favoring local control but controversial among those supporting federal safeguards for equity (e.g., for disadvantaged students). Passage would mark a major restructuring of federal education policy, influencing future debates on national standards versus local autonomy.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]

Cosponsors (5)

Rep. McGuire, John [R-VA-5], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Wilson, Joe [R-SC-2]

Recent Actions

• 2025-04-07: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
• 2025-04-07: Introduced in House
• 2025-04-07: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• To abolish the Department of Education and to provide funding directly to States for elementary and secondary education, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-04-07 — PDF (3 pages)