Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Education Department was inspired by the Heritage Foundation’s decades-long disapproval of the agency

The Heritage Foundation flag flies over its building on July 30, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 20, 2025, that calls for closing the U.S. Department of Education.

The president needs congressional approval to shutter the department. The order, however, directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

The executive order reflects many recommendations from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative political initiative to revamp the federal government. But it’s worth noting that the foundation’s attempt to abolish the Education Department goes back more than 40 years.

The think tank first called for limiting the federal role in education in 1981. That’s when it issued its first Mandate for Leadership, a book offering conservative policy recommendations.

As a sociology professor focused on diversity and social inequality, I’ve followed the Heritage Foundation’s efforts to eliminate the Department of Education since 1981. Although the idea didn’t garner enough support 44 years ago, the current political climate makes conditions more favorable.

Mandate 1981

In its 1981 mandate, the Heritage Foundation struck now-familiar themes.

Its education policy recommendations included closing the Department of Education and “reducing its controls over American education.”

Additionally, the think tank called on lawmakers to repeal the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides federal funding for disadvantaged students in K-12, so that “the department’s influence on state and local education policy and practice through discretionary grant authority would disappear.”

And the Heritage Foundation called for ending federal support for programs it claimed were designed to “turn elementary- and secondary-school classrooms into vehicles for liberal-left social and political change …”

The Heritage Foundation building is seen on July 30, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Education experts disputed these proposed reforms just a few years later.

Four educational task forces, composed mainly of educators, corporate executives and politicians, published reports on education in 1983. All four reports were critical of the more liberal education policies of the 1960s and 1970s – such as an emphasis on student feelings about race, for example, rather than a focus on basic skills.

But they all saw the need for a strong federal role in education.

The four reports blamed the U.S. educational system for losing ground to Japan and Western Europe. And all called for more required courses rather than the “curriculum smorgasbord” that had become the norm in many public schools. They all wanted longer school days, longer school years and better-trained teachers.

Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan tried unsuccessfully to abolish the Department of Education in 1983.

Project 2025

Jumping ahead more than 40 years, Project 2025 reflects many of the main themes the Heritage Foundation addressed in the 1981 mandate. The first line of Project 2025’s chapter on education states: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”

The charges of leftist indoctrination have expanded. Now, conservative advocates are calling to eliminate anything that has to do with diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.

Other executive orders that Trump has signed reflect these attitudes.

For example, they call for defending women from “gender ideology extremism” and eliminating “radical” DEI policies.

According to Project 2025, school choice – which gives students the freedom to choose schools that best fit their needs – should be promoted through tuition tax credits and vouchers that provide students with public funds to attend private school. And federal education programs should either be dismantled or moved to other federal departments.

Current political climate

In the 1980s, the Heritage Foundation was seen as part of the New Right, a coalition that opposed issues such as abortion, homosexuality and affirmative action. The GOP’s alliance with conservative evangelical Christians, mobilized by advocacy groups such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, was picking up steam, but it was still seen as marginal.

By 2025, things have moved significantly to the right.

Conservative Republicans in Congress view the Heritage Foundation as an important voice in educational politics.

The far right is emboldened by Trump after his Cabinet appointments and pardons of Jan. 6 rioters.

And Christian Nationalism – the belief that the United States is defined by Christianity – has grown.

Paul Dans, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, speaks at the National Conservative Conference in Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2024.
Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

Trump’s executive order does not abolish the Education Department. He needs congressional approval to do that.

But he has already weakened it. His administration recently canceled nearly $900 million in contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences, the independent research arm of the Education Department.

Despite public reluctance to eliminate the department – in February, 63% of U.S. residents said they opposed its elimination – it looks like Heritage Foundation influence could cause significant damage, with the additional firing of staff members and the reduced distribution of funds.

McMahon sent a directive to department employees in early March calling the dismantling of their agency a “final mission.”

Fred L. Pincus does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.