To terminate the Department of Education.
- Bill Number
- H.R. 899
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Education
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-01-31: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-01T08:08:38Z
AI-Generated Summary
Summary of H.R. 899: To Terminate the Department of Education
Purpose
This bill aims to completely end the operations of the U.S. Department of Education, a federal agency responsible for overseeing national education policies, funding programs, and enforcing related laws. The goal is to eliminate this department as part of broader efforts to reduce federal involvement in education.
Key Provisions
- Termination Date: The Department of Education must cease all operations by December 31, 2026.
- The bill is concise and does not specify details on how the termination will be carried out, such as the transfer of responsibilities, assets, or ongoing programs.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This would repeal the foundational laws creating the Department of Education, established in 1979 under the Department of Education Organization Act.
- It removes federal oversight of key education functions, shifting them potentially to states or other agencies, though the bill does not outline a specific transition plan.
- Existing federal education laws, programs, and funding mechanisms (e.g., student aid, special education grants) would require new legislation or reassignment to avoid disruption.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The dissolution would eliminate a major cabinet-level department with over 4,000 employees, requiring the redistribution of its duties to states, other federal agencies (like the Department of Health and Human Services), or elimination altogether. This could lead to short-term administrative chaos and long-term budget savings estimated in the billions annually.
- On Citizens: Students, teachers, and families relying on federal programs—such as Pell Grants for college aid, Title I funding for low-income schools, or protections for students with disabilities—could face disruptions in access to education resources. States might need to fill funding gaps, potentially increasing local taxes or reducing services.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but it could reduce U.S. participation in global education initiatives, like those through UNESCO, affecting America's role in international standards for schooling and higher education.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Federal Government: Congress, the executive branch, and affected agencies would need to manage the transition.
- State and Local Governments: Schools, universities, and education departments would gain more autonomy but lose federal funding streams.
- Educators and Students: Teachers, school administrators, and millions of K-12 and higher education students could see changes in program availability and support.
- Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on civil rights in education, disability rights, or student loans (e.g., teachers' unions, civil liberties groups) would be directly impacted.
- Taxpayers: Potential for reduced federal spending, but risks of increased state-level costs.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: The bill's brevity raises questions about implementation; courts might need to interpret how to handle ongoing contracts, lawsuits, or statutory references to the department. It could face challenges under administrative law for lacking a clear wind-down process.
- Constitutional: Education is primarily a state responsibility under the U.S. Constitution (10th Amendment), so terminating the department aligns with arguments for limiting federal overreach. However, it could conflict with existing federal mandates tied to funding, potentially requiring amendments to laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
- Political: As a proposal from a group of Republican lawmakers, it reflects debates on federalism and government size. Passage would be highly contentious, likely requiring broad congressional support and presidential approval, and could spark partisan divides over education equity and access.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (37)
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Burchett, Tim [R-TN-2], Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9], Rep. Collins, Mike [R-GA-10], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Crank, Jeff [R-CO-5], Rep. Davidson, Warren [R-OH-8], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9], Rep. Greene, Marjorie Taylor [R-GA-14], Rep. Hageman, Harriet M. [R-WY-At Large], Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1], Rep. McCormick, Richard [R-GA-7], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Spartz, Victoria [R-IN-5], Rep. Tenney, Claudia [R-NY-24], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Timmons, William R. [R-SC-4], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Taylor, David [R-OH-2], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17], Rep. Nehls, Troy E. [R-TX-22], Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7], Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1], Rep. Luna, Anna Paulina [R-FL-13], Rep. Stutzman, Marlin A. [R-IN-3], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3]
Recent Actions
- 2025-01-31: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
- 2025-01-31: Introduced in House
- 2025-01-31: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- To terminate the Department of Education. — issued 2025-01-31 — PDF (1 pages)