Trump’s Next Plan for the US Education System: From Executive Pressure to Permanent Rules

President Donald Trump’s second-term education policy agenda has already reshaped the US education system through aggressive executive action. Throughout 2025, universities and school districts faced unprecedented disruption as the Trump administration rolled out a sweeping series of education executive orders, federal investigations, and funding freezes. These moves targeted everything from diversity programmes in higher education to transgender student policies, civil rights enforcement, and federal oversight of colleges and schools.

As Trump moves deeper into his second term, the focus is shifting from short-term enforcement to long-term control. The administration’s next challenge is to ensure its Trump education reforms are embedded through formal federal education rulemaking, making them harder for future presidents to undo.

A Year of Enforcement Through Executive Power

Throughout 2025, the White House relied heavily on executive authority to pressure educational institutions into compliance with its political and ideological agenda. Trump signed a rapid succession of education-related executive orders, targeting:

• Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes
• Transgender student participation in sports and access to facilities
• Campus responses to antisemitism
• College admissions, hiring, and governance practices
• Federal student loan and research funding

These actions were reinforced by a sweeping expansion of civil rights investigations. More than 120 higher education institutions and dozens of K–12 school systems came under federal scrutiny, often simultaneously investigated by multiple agencies beyond the Department of Education, including Health and Human Services, Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and the General Services Administration.

The strategy was clear: apply coordinated federal pressure to compel schools to align with Trump’s education priorities.

Federal Funding as a Pressure Tool

One of the most consequential tactics was the use of federal research funding freezes. In a dramatic escalation, the administration suspended more than $5 billion in grants and contracts to universities nationwide.

Some of the most high-profile funding freezes included:

• Harvard University: over $2 billion
• Cornell University: $1 billion
• Northwestern University: $760 million
• UCLA: $584 million
• Brown University: $510 million
• Columbia University: more than $400 million
• University of Pennsylvania: $175 million

At the K–12 level, the administration also withheld approximately $7 billion in previously approved federal education funding, a move later challenged by Republican lawmakers who argued it contradicted Trump’s stated commitment to state control over education.

Under mounting financial pressure, many institutions capitulated. Several universities agreed to pay millions to the federal government and overhaul policies related to diversity programmes, transgender student inclusion, admissions, hiring, and antisemitism. Only Harvard and UCLA refused to settle and instead pursued legal challenges.

Legal Pushback and Judicial Limits

The administration’s approach has increasingly met resistance in the courts. Federal judges ruled in favour of both Harvard and UCLA, ordering the restoration of their federal funding.

A judge in Boston determined that freezing Harvard’s research funding was unlawful and found no direct link between antisemitism enforcement and grant termination. In California, another judge accused the administration of running a coercive pressure campaign and blocked it from using research funding as leverage against the University of California system.

These rulings weakened a core pillar of Trump’s education strategy: the use of financial force to extract policy concessions. Legal experts suggest the decisions could embolden other institutions to resist White House demands rather than negotiate settlements.

From Investigations to Rulemaking

While investigations have delivered short-term compliance, Trump allies argue that lasting change requires regulation.

“This has been a year of enforcement through investigation,” said Bob Eitel, former senior counsel to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos. “Next year will be the year of rulemaking.”

The administration plans to formalise its agenda through new regulations tied to Title IX (sex discrimination) and Title VI (race and national origin discrimination). Codifying interpretations of these laws would strengthen the government’s authority to enforce restrictions on transgender students, dismantle DEI initiatives, and expand federal oversight of campus conduct.

Currently, the administration is enforcing Title IX based on biological sex, barring transgender students from women’s sports and facilities, and relying on the 2020 Trump-era Title IX rule, which mandates courtroom-style hearings for sexual misconduct cases. However, key elements of these policies remain vulnerable because they have not yet been fully enshrined in regulation.

Structural Constraints Inside the Education Department

The administration’s regulatory ambitions face serious internal constraints. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has reduced the department’s workforce by half, eliminating many of the career staff typically responsible for drafting complex federal rules.

At the same time, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which introduced major changes to:

• Student loan repayment systems
• Graduate borrowing limits
• Endowment taxation
• Pell Grant eligibility for short-term workforce training
• A new federal tax credit supporting school choice and private education

These reforms require extensive rulemaking on tight statutory deadlines, with several provisions expected to be implemented by mid-2026 or early 2027.

Former Obama-era education officials warn that the combination of reduced staffing, legal deadlines, and an already crowded regulatory calendar could lead to a severe rulemaking bottleneck, potentially delaying or derailing parts of Trump’s agenda.

Midterms and Political Risk

The administration is also racing against the clock politically. The 2026 midterm elections could alter the balance of power in Congress, complicating Trump’s ability to advance or defend regulatory changes.

Education policy experts note that federal rules must often be finalised by November 1 to take effect the following July. Missing that window could push implementation back by an entire year, leaving reforms vulnerable to political reversal.

What Comes Next for US Education Policy

Having exhausted the leverage of investigations and funding threats, the White House is now pivoting towards traditional policymaking. Attempts to negotiate broad compacts with universities in exchange for improved access to federal grants have largely failed, signalling that institutions are increasingly unwilling to strike deals.

The next chapter of Trump’s education strategy will therefore hinge on whether his administration can:

• Successfully complete complex rulemaking with a reduced workforce
• Defend new regulations against legal challenges
• Navigate statutory deadlines and midterm political shifts
• Balance enforcement ambitions with administrative capacity

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s education agenda has already reshaped the relationship between Washington and American schools through unprecedented executive pressure. But investigations and funding freezes, while disruptive, are inherently temporary.

The true test of Trump’s second-term education legacy lies ahead. Whether his policies endure will depend not on executive orders, but on the slow, technical, and contested process of writing rules that last.