The US Department of Education (ED) has stopped posting up-to-date Freedom of Information (FOIA) logs. These logs had been posted and updated from 2011 to September 2024 to improve transparency and accountability to the agency. We have reached out ED for a statement. We are also awaiting for a number of information requests, some of which have taken more than 18 months for substantive replies.
Nearly 25% of college students in 2020 reported
limited or uncertain access to food. Despite being potentially eligible,
most didn’t receive Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP)
benefits—formerly known as “food stamps”—which could help them pay for
food.
A recent law gave the Department of Education
authority to share students’ Free Application for Federal Student Aid
data with federal and state SNAP agencies to identify and help students
who may be eligible for benefits.
But Education hasn’t made a plan to start sharing this data—nor have states received guidance about this opportunity.
We recommended ways to address these issues.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Department of
Education have taken some steps to connect college students with
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to help them
pay for food, but gaps in planning and execution remain. Effective July
2024, a new law gave Education authority to share students’ Free
Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) data with USDA and state
SNAP agencies to conduct student outreach and streamline benefit
administration. However, according to officials, Education had not yet
developed a plan to implement these complex data-sharing arrangements.
This risks delays in students getting important information that could
help them access benefits they are eligible for. Following the passage
of this new law, Education began providing a notification about federal
benefit programs for students who may be eligible for them. However, it
has not evaluated its method for identifying potentially eligible
students. According to GAO analysis of 2020 Education data, Education’s
method could miss an estimated 40 percent of potentially SNAP-eligible
students.
USDA encouraged state SNAP agencies to enhance student outreach and
enrollment assistance. However, USDA has not included important
information about the use of SNAP data and other student data in its
guidance to state SNAP agencies. These gaps in guidance have left states
with questions about how to permissibly use and share students’ data to
help connect them with benefits.
Student Food Assistance at a College Basic Needs Center
Officials from the three selected states and seven colleges GAO
contacted described key strategies for communicating with students about
their potential SNAP eligibility. These include using destigmatizing
language, linking students directly to an application or support staff,
and coordinating outreach efforts with SNAP agencies. Officials from the
states and colleges GAO contacted said it is helpful to have staff
available on campus to assist students with the SNAP application. Some
colleges have found it helpful to partner with their respective SNAP
agencies to obtain information on the status of students’ applications.
According to a national survey, almost one-quarter of college
students were food insecure in 2020, yet GAO found many who were
potentially eligible for SNAP had not received benefits. The substantial
federal investment in higher education is at risk of not serving its
intended purpose if students drop out because of limited or uncertain
access to food. Studies have found using data to direct outreach to
those potentially eligible can increase benefit uptake.
GAO was asked to review college student food insecurity. This report
addresses (1) the extent to which Education and USDA have supported data
use to help college students access SNAP benefits, and (2) how selected
states and colleges have used student data to help connect students
with SNAP benefits.
GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and agency documents. GAO also
interviewed officials from Education, USDA, and national higher
education and SNAP associations. GAO selected three states and
interviewed officials from state SNAP and higher education agencies and
seven colleges in these states. GAO visited one selected state in person
and interviewed two virtually. States were selected based on actions to
support food insecure students and stakeholder recommendations.
GAO is making five recommendations, including that Education develop a
plan to implement FAFSA data-sharing and assess its benefit
notification approach; and that USDA improve its SNAP agency guidance.
The agencies neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations.
Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
---|---|---|
Department of Education | The Secretary of Education should develop a written plan for implementing provisions in the FAFSA Simplification Act related to sharing FAFSA data with SNAP administrators, to aid in benefit outreach and enrollment assistance. (Recommendation 1) |
|
Department of Education | The Secretary of Education should, in consultation with USDA, evaluate its approach to identifying and notifying FAFSA applicants who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits and adjust its approach as needed. (Recommendation 2) |
|
Department of Education | The Secretary of Education should inform colleges and state higher education agencies that FAFSA notifications are being sent to applicants who are potentially eligible for SNAP benefits. (Recommendation 3) |
|
Department of Agriculture | The Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should, in consultation with Education, issue guidance to state SNAP agencies—such as in its SNAP outreach priority memo—to clarify permissible uses of student data, including FAFSA data, for SNAP outreach and enrollment assistance. (Recommendation 4) |
|
Department of Agriculture | The Administrator of USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service should issue guidance to state SNAP agencies—such as in its SNAP outreach priority memo—to clarify the permissible uses and disclosure of SNAP data to support SNAP student outreach and enrollment assistance. (Recommendation 5) |
From U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s recent comments to the Trump administration’s latest funding threat to an Ivy League institution, here are the top-line figures from some of our biggest stories of the week.
By the numbers
100+
How many union employees were recently fired from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, the agency’s research and data arm. McMahon said Tuesday at an education and technology conference that the department is looking to revamp IES.
9
The number of demands made by the Trump administration to Harvard University for the Ivy League institution to keep its federal funding, according to a copy of the letter. The requirements include for Harvard to review academic programs the Trump administration considers “biased” and for the university to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
15%
The National Institutes of Health’s proposed rate cap on reimbursement for indirect research costs. However, a federal district judge permanently barred the NIH last week from implementing the policy, ruling the agency lacked the legal authority to make the change.
3
The number of federal lending programs the Education Department named when announcing plans to revise student aid regulations. The agency indicated it hopes to make changes to two income-driven repayment plans, as well as the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, which clears debts for public servants after they make a decade of qualifying payments.
22,000
How many students attending private nonprofit colleges who could be rendered ineligible for a popular grant program in Florida under a new legislative proposal. Florida lawmakers are mulling performance metrics — including minimum graduation rates — for institutions to be able to participate in the program.
The U.S. Department of Education plans to propose changes to student aid regulations, including those governing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program and two income-driven repayment plans, it announced Thursday.
Under a process called negotiated rulemaking, the Education Department intends to bring together representatives from different factions of the higher education sector to hash out the details of new regulations.
If the representatives reach consensus on new policies, the negotiated rulemaking process requires the Education Department to adopt their regulatory language in its proposal, except in limited circumstances. If negotiators don’t reach agreement, however, the agency is free to write its own rules.
Before that process begins, the Education Department said it will seek public feedback on “deregulatory ideas” for Title IV student aid programs.
“This process will focus on how the Department can rightsize Title IV regulations that have driven up the cost of college and hindered innovation,” Acting Under Secretary James Bergeron said in a statement. “Not only will this rulemaking serve as an opportunity to identify and cut unnecessary red tape, but it will allow key stakeholders to offer suggestions to streamline and improve federal student aid programs.”
Part of the negotiated rulemaking process will focus on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. PSLF, enacted in 2007 by President George W. Bush, forgives the student loan balances of borrowers who make 10 years of payments and hold public service jobs, such as working for the government or a nonprofit.
The program has come under fire from President Donald Trump, who signed an executive order last month aiming to limit who is eligible.
The order alleges that the PSLF program has “misdirected tax dollars into activist organizations” and tells U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon to propose program revisions barring borrowers from receiving forgiveness if they work for organizations that “have a substantial illegal purpose.”
The directive also accused the program of providing premature debt relief to borrowers. The Biden administration temporarily relaxed PSLF rules to make it easier for borrowers to receive debt relief through the program, which had extremely high denial rates due to confusing eligibility requirements and chronic loan servicer issues.
Some groups have pushed back on the executive order, arguing that it’s an attempt to revoke student loan forgiveness eligibility for borrowers working for nonprofits with missions that the Trump administration doesn’t support.
In a statement, Mike Pierce, executive director of Student Borrower Protection Center, called the order “blatantly illegal and an all-out weaponization of debt intended to silence speech that does not align with President Trump’s MAGA agenda.”
The Education Department is also planning to review regulations for two income-driven repayment plans: Pay as You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment.
The agency restored the ability for borrowers to enroll in these programs late last month after previously taking down the online application forms. The freeze on the programs came in response to an appeals court ruling blocking a Biden-era income-driven repayment plan — Saving on a Valuable Education.
The suspension of the plans drew a legal challenge from the American Federation of Teachers. The Education Department restored access to them less than a day after the union petitioned a judge for emergency intervention, according to a news release.
Plans for negotiated rulemaking come amid the Trump administration’s move to dismantle the Education Department and move its responsibilities to other agencies.
For example, Trump said he plans to move the department’s student loan portfolio to the newly-downsized Small Business Administration. Both conservatives and liberals have expressed concern that the SBA won’t have the staff or expertise to perform the job.
Fully eliminating the Education Department would require congressional approval.
The Education Department will kick off the lengthy rule-making process later this month with a pair of hearings.
The department is planning to consider regulatory changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, income-driven repayment plans and “other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs,” according to a Federal Register notice.
Hearings are just the first step in negotiated rule making, which also includes convening an advisory committee to weigh in on regulatory changes over a series of meetings, proposing draft regulations and then a public comment period. Historically, the whole process takes at least a year.
The Federal Register notice doesn’t say what specific changes the department is seeking to make aside from “redefining definitions of a qualifying employer.” The department also is planning to revise the regulations for Pay as You Earn and income-contingent repayment plans.
In early March, President Donald Trump directed the Education Department to change which employers or companies are eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program. Under the executive order, activities that would disqualify a nonprofit could include aiding or abetting violations of federal immigration laws or what the government considers illegal discrimination. Advocates and Democrats decried the order as “un-American” and argued that it would disrupt borrowers’ lives.
The department will hold an in-person hearing April 29 and a virtual hearing May 1. More information is available here.
“This process will focus on how the Department can rightsize Title IV regulations that have driven up the cost of college and hindered innovation,” said Acting Under Secretary James Bergeron in a news release. Bergeron is also leading the Office of Federal Student Aid. (Title IV of the Higher Education Act authorizes federal financial aid programs.)
He added that “not only will this rulemaking serve as an opportunity to identify and cut unnecessary red tape, but it will allow key stakeholders to offer suggestions to streamline and improve federal student aid programs.”
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
The conflict between the state of Maine and the Trump administration over transgender student athletes reached a new pivot point on Monday. As the first of several deadlines set by the federal government has now expired, whether Maine can continue to allow trans athletes to participate in school sports appears likely to be decided by the courts.
Two separate federal agencies determined that Maine is in violation of Title IX based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the anti-sex discrimination protection.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning Monday to the Maine Department of Education regarding its noncompliance with a federal directive for allowing trans girls to participate in girls’ sports.
If the state does not propose an agreement that’s acceptable to the office by April 11, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice, the letter said.
Meanwhile, a separate investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office that found Maine in violation of Title IX for “continuing to unlawfully allow” trans girls to compete in girl’s sports has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, according to a Monday social media post from the agency.
In a letter dated March 17, HHS had given Maine a deadline of 10 days to comply with federal guidance. Monday marked ten business days from that warning.
Both agencies determined that Maine had violated federal law after dayslong investigations that included no interviews, while typical investigations take months and are eventually settled with resolution agreements. The probes were launched after Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump had a heated exchange over the state’s trans athlete policy. Millions of dollars in federal funding might be at risk, depending on how the cases proceed.
“We just need an answer at this point as to, ‘Does the Trump administration have the authority to do what it’s doing when it comes to fast tracking the removal of federal funds?’” said Jackie Wernz, a former OCR lawyer for the Education Department who now represents school districts nationwide in these types of cases.
“This is just unprecedented, and we’re not following the process that we’re used to. So I think it’s going to be really helpful for courts to start weighing in on whether or not they have the authority to do this.”
Meanwhile, Republican state lawmakers said in a news conference on Tuesday that they want the state to repeal trans students’ rights to athletics, locker rooms and bathrooms, and to roll back inclusion of gender as a protected class in the Maine Human Rights Act.
“The problem is that the term gender identity and the Human Rights Act is being interpreted way too broadly by the left,” said Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook). “And what it’s saying is there’s no boundary between men’s and women’s spaces.”
Rep. Michael Soboleski (R- Phillips) said he is introducing a bill to remove consideration of gender identity from the act, and asked Democrats and Mills to support the legislation in order to avoid the risk of losing federal funding.
Earlier this year, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove civil rights from a state law when its Legislature voted to remove gender identity from its civil rights act.
“This is not sustainable,” Stewart said. “We’re a poor state. We are heavily reliant on federal money. The governor needs to move on this.”
On March 19, the Department of Education’s civil rights office notified Maine of its noncompliance and proposed a resolution agreement that would require the state to rescind its support of trans athletes, which is currently required by the Maine Human Rights Act. A Cumberland-area school district and the Maine Principals Association, which runs student athletics, that were also found in violation have already refused to sign the agreement.
This development is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to enforce Title IX provisions concerning gender and athletics. Earlier this year, the administration launched investigations in several other states for similar policies allowing trans athletes to compete in alignment with their gender identity.
Title IX, the federal law banning sex-based discrimination, does not reference trans people directly, but the Trump administration has interpreted Maine’s policy as discrimination against cisgender girls.
Rachel Perera, a fellow in the governance studies program for the Brown Center on Education Policy at national think tank The Brookings Institution, said the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX leaves room for questioning. If the policy goes to trial, she said federal courts may come up with a clearer interpretation.
“It’s going to be really important to see how Maine proceeds, because they’re sort of setting the tone in terms of these other states and other localities who are going to be trying to navigate these very same dynamics,” she said.
Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
President Donald Trump’s promise to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education was long heralded. Dating back to his first term, the vow was loudly and oft-repeated by candidate Trump on the campaign trail in 2024.
But while the plan went nowhere during his first time in the White House, it has come to fruition through a slew of executive actions since his inauguration in January.
What began with abruptly canceled education grants in February escalated with the confirmation of U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon on March 3 and her promise of “our department’s final mission” that same day. The culmination came in massive layoffs on March 11 and a Trump executive order a week later instructing McMahon to close the department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”
A handful of the Trump administration’s actions — including last week’s order — have already been challenged in court. But in the meantime, their impacts are tangible in everything from students’ civil rights protections to funding for teacher grants.
K-12 Dive obtained an organizational chart from the Education Department detailing the offices impacted by the March 11 layoffs, as well as a list of about 970 union employees out of 1,300 employees who were let go, which offices they had been employed in and their positions. While the list of employees isn’t comprehensive, it gives a general idea of where cuts were concentrated — and what that might mean for education in the long run.
Based on those documents, here are eight visuals to help understand Trump’s multiphased gutting of the Education Department and its widespread impact:
By the numbers
$600 million
Cut to “divisive” teacher training grants
$900 million
Cut to multiyear research contracts
The March 11 layoffs were preceded by cuts to over $1 billion in grant funding. Research grants housed in the National Center for Education Statistics were on the chopping block, as were teacher training grants that the administration called “divisive.”
The teacher grants impacted include the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program. These cuts would later be successfully challenged through at least two lawsuits. This week, Trump filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the lower court ruling and seeking the immediate cancellation of $65 million in teacher training grants it says advances diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Former National Center for Education Statistics employees also confirmed to K-12 Dive that research grants related to student assessments were cut — a move that will likely result in a “barebones” approach to congressionally mandated tests like the Nation’s Report Card.
By the numbers
4,133
number of employees prior to department’s gutting
600
number of employees that take buyouts prior to layoffs
1,300
number of staff fired on March 11
2,200
approximate number of employees following layoffs
After the initial cuts to grants — and on the night of McMahon’s March 3 confirmation — employees were given an 11:59 p.m. ET deadline to voluntarily accept a $25,000 separation agreement in an effort to downsize the agency’s workforce. According to a later announcement by the department, about 600 employees took that offer leading up to the March 11 layoffs.
The layoffs would bring the total number of employees impacted by the reduction in force — part of McMahon’s “final mission” for the Education Department — to 1,900, or nearly half of its 4,133 count.
The data represents the 970 union workers laid off on March 11, 2025, and excludes non-union workers.
On March 11, the administration laid off nearly 1,300 employees across various offices within the Education Department. Among offices losing the most people were Federal Student Aid, which students depend on to determine their eligibility for federal grants and loans for college. The move is the opposite of a recommendation made by the Government Accountability Office last year — following a botched FAFSA rollout — to “plan for and ensure hiring of sufficient staff to increase capacity” in the FSA office.
The Institute for Education Sciences, home to the National Center for Education Statistics and oversight for the Nation’s Report Card, was cut down by over a hundred staff and left NCES with a skeletal staff of a handful.
And the English Language Acquisition office was completely decimated, with all of its some dozen unionized employees laid off, according to the Education Department’s organizational chart. That move came less than two weeks after Trump signed an order making English the official language of the United States.
Another Education Department arm significantly impacted was the Office for Civil Rights, which enforces laws that protect students’ civil rights. The reduction there comes after the Biden administration pleaded to Congress for an increase in funding and staff to address a case backlog, escalated by Title VI complaints based on shared ancestry or ethnicity in light of the Israel-Hamas war. The Trump administration has acknowledged the backlog but halved the office’s headcount rather than increasing staff.
The civil rights arm also lost seven of its dozen regional office.
OCR is responsible for keeping schools in compliance with civil rights laws and handles investigations that in the past often took months or even years to complete. Those investigations, among other things, ensure equal access to education for sexual assault survivors, students with disabilities and students from all races and ethnicities.
The data represents the 970 union workers laid off on March 11, 2025, and excludes non-union workers.
Out of hundreds of OCR employees fired, a significant number were civil rights attorneys and equal opportunity employees, leaving the office with a skeletal crew to oversee more than 12,000 currently open investigations. At least 200 employees in total were let go.
These attorneys carried out the majority of OCR’s work, including determining case outcomes and sometimes helping to develop policy guidance.
Multiple lawsuits have since challenged the Trump administration’s decision to pare down OCR specifically, alleging that the layoffs will render the office unable to do its job. One challenge, filed by parents on March 14 claims the move would deny families the right to a complaint and investigation process.
Pending cases currently under investigation at public schools and colleges by the Department of Education as of January 14, 2025
The Trump administration has said that it will continue to fulfill its legal obligations and is fast-tracking the resolution of its caseload through means other than full investigations.
Numbers of schools and students are as of the 2020–21 school year. Open cases are as of January 2025.
Overall, the shuttering of more than half of OCR offices will impact nearly 60,000 public schools and over 30 million K-12 students, according to data drawn from NCES and cross-referenced with the locations of the closed offices.
NCES department staff were almost all eliminated other than fewer than 10 leadership positions
The impact of layoffs extends to NCES, whose staff were all let go other than a few people in leadership positions.
The data center traces its existence to an 1867 law establishing a federal statistical agency to collect, analyze and report education data. Today, it collects information on the condition of education and helps education policymakers understand areas of need and impact of decisionmaking. Its shuttering rocked the education and statistics world.
Those laid off say the handful of employees left in the office are not equipped to oversee the slew of data the center collects and analyzes, including data on student achievement through the National Assessment for Educational Progress and the Program for International Student Assessment.
Democrat efforts to challenge President Donald Trump’s dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education mounted Thursday, as 11 senators asked the agency’s acting inspector general, René Rocque, to investigate the push.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren and senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer were among those requesting an evaluation of whether the administration is undermining the Education Department’s ability to provide students with equal access to education and to help state and local governments’ education systems
“Decimating the Department of Education’s abilities to administer financial aid, investigate civil rights violations, conduct research on educational outcomes, and oversee the use of federal education grants threatens to have disastrous consequences for American students, teachers and families,” they wrote in a March 27 letter to Rocque.
“The Trump Administration’s further attempts to close the Department entirely and transfer its responsibilities over to other agencies will likely interrupt and degrade education programs and services, causing additional pain for the 62 million students across the country that the Department serves.”
The administration’s gutting of the Education Department not only impacted nearly half of the department’s workforce, but also left civil rights investigation and enforcement offices at half their previous capacity, cut the Federal Student Aid office by over 450 employees, and slashed 90% of the Institute of Education Sciences staff.
These decisions would likely impede key functions of the department, including ensuring all students’ civil rights are protected, administering federal loans and overseeing lenders and FAFSA, and tracking students’ educational outcomes and the condition of education in the nation, the Democratic senators told Rocque.
Rocque, who joined the Education Department’s Office of Inspector General as deputy inspector general in December 2023, became acting director in January.
As with many other issues dividing lawmakers today, Democrats and Republicans have been starkly divided over the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate the department altogether. This makes attaining a Senate supermajority of 60 votes — which is required to officially shut the department — unlikely.
House Democrats introduced a resolution on March 21 calling for transparency and information from the administration, including unredacted copies of all federal documents referring to the department’s closure and information on workforce reduction decisions.
About a week after the massive reduction in force on March 11, Democrat lawmakers from both the House and Senate wrote the department demanding information on the layoffs, saying that halving its workforce could impact the agency’s ability to perform vital functions required by law.
Meanwhile, Republicans in some states have taken the opportunity to ask the administration for more leeway in their education spending.
On March 25, for example, Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters sent a letter to the Education Department requesting a waiver to receive a block grant for all funds allocated to his state under the Every Student Succeeds Act. Such a consolidated block grant would “significantly enhance local flexibility” so “schools will be able to address their unique needs and priorities,” Walters wrote.
The block grant would be used to “expand educational choices,” including attendance at private schools, and would loosen federal oversight of education spending requirements.