In recent weeks, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has appeared before both the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) to defend the Trump Administration’s fiscal year 2026 (FY26) budget request for the Department of Education (ED). These policy debates are unfolding alongside an ongoing legal battle, as federal courts weigh whether the administration’s proposed downsizing of the Department exceeds executive authority and requires congressional approval.
House Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee
On May 21, McMahon outlined plans to downsize ED staff by nearly 50 percent, eliminate grants she described as inconsistent with federal law or national priorities, and return authority over education to states and local communities.
A significant portion of her testimony focused on restructuring the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), aligning with the administration’s proposed $900 million in cuts to IES contracts through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). These cuts could weaken the federal government’s ability to provide evidence-based research and data to guide education policy. McMahon also signaled support for reducing funding to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), placing core longitudinal surveys such as the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS) and the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS) at risk—an issue of direct concern to FABBS and the broader research community.
House members from both parties raised concerns about proposed cuts to Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) and its sister programs, collectively known as TRIO—originally consisting of Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services, but now expanded to eight programs—aim to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds in accessing and succeeding in higher education. These programs support disadvantaged students’ access to higher education. House members from both parties also raised concerns about proposed cuts to the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces federal protections in schools. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), the subcommittee and full committee Ranking Member, warned against dismantling key components of the federal education infrastructure, calling the proposed budget one that “leaves every child behind.”
Senate Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee
McMahon continued her defense of the Trump Administration’s FY26 budget request during her June 3 testimony before the Senate Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee. She reiterated the administration’s priorities to shift federal education funding toward block grants, increase state and local control, and reduce what she described as unnecessary federal bureaucracy.
In her opening remarks, Subcommittee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) highlighted ongoing struggles in student achievement nationwide, which were further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In contrast, Subcommittee Ranking Member Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) demanded that McMahon spend the funds Congress had allocated FY25 for teacher training, before-school and after-school care, and student mental health services. Baldwin sharply questioned the very point of convening the hearing, asking what purpose it served if McMahon planned to blatantly disregard the laws Congress had already enacted.
During questioning, senators from both parties, including Senators Baldwin, Capito, Patty Murray (D-WA), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME), challenged McMahon’s proposal to eliminate TRIO and GEAR UP. Additionally, McMahon’s plan to cut funding for the OCR drew bipartisan concern from Senators Murray, Capito, and Katie Britt (R-AL).
Ongoing Legal Challenge
The Trump Administration’s efforts to drastically downsize ED are also facing judicial pushback. On May 22, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled that the administration’s plan to cut nearly half of ED’s staff was unlawful and exceeded executive authority. The following day, the administration appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
This appeal is part of a broader injunction issued on May 22 by U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, who halted similar restructuring efforts across 22 federal agencies on the grounds that such sweeping changes require congressional approval and cannot be enacted unilaterally by the executive branch.
On May 30, the Trump Administration lost its appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 2, the Administration submitted a record 18th emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court seeking to lift the injunction and proceed with the planned layoffs and restructuring.
The Supreme Court ruling will have significant implications for the constitutional balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
