A personal account published in HuffPost in mid-August features a man who dropped out of high school but later earned a GED, graduated from college, and was admitted to Harvard Law School. He credited his turnaround to public resources — libraries, tutoring programs, and federal oversight — that supported his self-education journey. Now, as a practicing attorney, he is sounding the alarm over proposed federal education cuts that could undermine similar opportunities for millions of students.
“I might never have made it to college, let alone law school,” wrote Ryan W Powers of the programs that supported his GED.
President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2026 budget proposal calls for a $12 billion, or roughly 15 percent, cut to the US Department of Education budget. This would reduce agency funding to approximately $67 billion. A key feature of Mr Trump’s proposal is the consolidation of 18 competitive and formula grant programs, which currently serve English learners, migrant students, and those in poverty, into a single “K-12 Simplified Funding Program,” funded at only $2 billion, down from about $6.5 billion, representing about a 70-percent cut.
Advocates warn these changes imperil vital services, including early-intervention programs, workforce training, special education supports, and protections for students experiencing homelessness under the McKinney-Vento Act, removing dedicated funding and legal accountability mechanisms.
The plan also includes deep cuts to federal financial aid, including the elimination of the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (FSEOG), a reduction in Federal Work-Study to $779 million from current levels, and a reduction or elimination of funding for teacher preparation, childcare for college students, and foreign language instruction. The Office for Civil Rights, which enforces educational equity protections, is slated to drop by $49 million in funding.
Robert Aderholt, Republican chair of the House Education Appropriations Subcommittee, framed the cuts as part of broader efforts to reduce government spending. “Even last year, we were dedicated to getting government spending under control … Now, it’s particularly encouraging to have a partner in the White House that shares this commitment,” Higher Ed Dive quoted him as saying. In contrast, Sen Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, slammed the cuts in reporting by the Associated Press as emblematic of a broader priority shift away from working Americans: “President Trump has made his priorities clear as day: he wants to outright defund programs that help working Americans,” she said, “while he shovels massive tax breaks at billionaires like himself.”
According to Reuters, the proposed cuts align with Mr Trump’s longer-term goal of shrinking or even shuttering the Department of Education, following a playbook of dismantling federal oversight and shifting authority to states.
Meanwhile, the broader domestic budget cuts loom large, the Washington Post reported. The White House’s FY 2026 proposal targets $163 billion in reductions from non-defense discretionary programs (nearly 23%), including sharp reductions to education, public health, environmental programs, and public media.
What’s at Stake: Schools, Students, and Legal Protections
Education observers warn that these cuts could unravel key supports in schools—especially in low-income, rural, or underserved communities. The consolidation of funds would give states greater flexibility — but fewer obligations — to serve vulnerable groups, potentially leaving students with disabilities or in transition without essential services. The cuts could also have an impact on Native Americans, The Guardian reports.
Moreover, reductions to civil rights enforcement, student aid, and targeted grants may diminish accountability for school districts, risking delayed or inadequate services. This challenges the core of federal education equity: ensuring students have both access and advocacy to claim their rights.
“It’s not just about students with learning disabilities,” Mr Walters wrote. “It’s about what happens when political leaders charged with enforcing rights are hostile to them — and the protections that once felt guaranteed slowly lose their power.”
