The US Supreme Court has given the green light for former President Donald Trump’s administration to significantly downsize the federal Department of Education, a move that slashes the agency’s workforce by nearly half and could fundamentally reshape the American educational landscape. This landmark decision, permitting mass firings and large-scale buyouts, not only spotlights sharp ideological divides in US education policy, but also sends signals around the world about the future of government involvement in public education.
For Thai readers, the news is significant: as Thailand looks abroad for education reform ideas, the dramatic rollback of federal oversight in the US—long regarded as a global benchmark—raises critical questions about the role of national governments in ensuring equitable, high-quality learning opportunities. At a time when Thai education is undergoing its own debates about decentralization and national policy direction, the fate of the US Department of Education offers a timely lesson in both the risks and potential rewards of drastic structural change.
Established as a Cabinet-level agency in 1979, the US Department of Education is tasked with administering federal aid and student loans for higher education, granting billions of dollars to schools, enforcing civil rights laws in educational settings, and compiling nationwide educational data. The department’s annual programs reached over 18,200 school districts, 50 million students, and nearly 98,000 public and 32,000 private schools across America, according to data from the agency itself. In the 2024 fiscal year, the department received $241.66 billion in budgetary resources, about 2% of the entire US federal budget—a substantial figure, but one that underscores the larger role played by state and local bodies, which contribute more than 90% of K-12 school funding (USA TODAY).
Despite the department’s relatively slim staff count—the smallest of all 15 US Cabinet agencies—its mandate is considerable. Among its most critical duties: ensuring K-12 schools comply with federal laws (including anti-discrimination and disability protections), monitoring college and university standards, providing grants and loans for more than 12 million postsecondary students, and identifying geographic or demographic gaps in achievement to better target resources.
However, critics of the department—led largely by US conservatives—have for decades lambasted it as unnecessary federal overreach, arguing that education is better managed locally. The Trump administration’s latest executive order, facilitated by Education Secretary Linda McMahon, called for closure of the department, though full abolition would require congressional approval. Still, the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively authorizes the administration’s deep cuts, allowing the department to eliminate 1,300 staff in March 2025 and grant nearly 600 buyouts, reducing its workforce to barely half its early 2024 size.
Supporters of downsizing claim the move will “restore local control,” reduce bureaucracy, and empower parents and communities. However, critics, including many education experts, civil rights advocates, and former department officials, warn that gutting the agency risks undermining its core responsibilities—especially those relating to student equity, disability accommodations, and civil rights enforcement. As noted by policy analysts cited in the report, federal oversight has long provided a “backstop” for children facing discrimination or attending under-resourced schools.
“Federal civil rights protections are vital for ensuring that all students, regardless of race, income, or disability, have fair access to education,” said a former official with the Office for Civil Rights. “Without a strong federal presence, we risk tremendous inequality emerging between states and within communities.” Experts also raise concerns about the potential for increased fraud and abuse in the US$179.65 billion student loan portfolio—administered by the Office of Federal Student Aid—if oversight is dramatically reduced.
For Thailand, where debates about de-centralising aspects of the Ministry of Education’s power recur every decade, the developments in the US prompt reflection. The broad US trend towards local control parallels some Thai reforms, where calls increase for greater autonomy for schools and provinces. Yet, as Thai education researchers point out, pure decentralization can widen gaps between richer and poorer areas, with wealthier communities able to supplement school budgets, while poorer regions struggle with chronic underfunding.
The history of educational policy in both nations shows a persistent tension between national standards and local flexibility. In Thailand, the central government seeks to maintain equitable standards nationwide, whether by enforcing unified curricula or by upholding the rights of ethnic minorities and students with disabilities—a challenge mirrored in the US. The Department of Education’s original mission, to “ensure equal educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age,” remains a touchstone for advocates fighting for marginalized communities (Department of Education).
Looking ahead, analysts predict the US downsizing could have far-reaching effects. Short-term, the cuts may hamper federal auditing and enforcement of school accountability, loan programs, and civil rights investigations. In the medium-term, should Congress eventually approve the department’s closure or further reductions, responsibility for major national programs would likely shift to states—many of which already face their own resource constraints and conflicting priorities. Some observers predict further legal battles as activists seek to preserve federal safeguards.
For policymakers in Thailand, the news underscores the value of balance: while local flexibility can foster innovation and responsiveness, strong national leadership is often necessary to prevent systemic inequality. The Thai experience with its Office of the Basic Education Commission and other arms of the Ministry of Education suggests that meaningful reform requires not elimination, but thoughtful recalibration—ensuring that every child, regardless of background, receives quality schooling.
As the US experiments with reducing federal involvement, Thai teachers, school leaders, and parents can benefit from watching both the successes and pitfalls that emerge. Practical recommendations for Thailand include: strengthening local capacity to manage budgets and curricula, while retaining robust national monitoring and support systems; investing in continuous professional development for teachers; and ensuring that all students—especially those in remote or underserved areas—receive the targeted funding and protections they need. Above all, promoting transparency and stakeholder engagement in education policy can help prevent the rise of inequalities that such dramatic decentralisation sometimes brings.
This pivotal moment in US education calls on Thai educators and policymakers to reflect: when is central intervention most needed, and when can local expertise lead? Only by learning from global trends—and adapting them with an eye to Thailand’s unique context—can the nation ensure a fair, resilient, and future-ready education system.
Sources: