Project 2025 is a policy initiative spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation and several allied conservative organizations. It aims to reshape the federal government, including the education sector, through sweeping reforms. At the heart of its education agenda is a call to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, reduce federal funding for public schools, promote school choice through vouchers and education savings accounts (ESAs), impose curriculum restrictions, and overhaul diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education. While its proponents advocate for parental control and decentralization, critics argue that these proposals would dismantle civil rights protections, exacerbate educational inequities, and undermine the autonomy of public institutions.
A cornerstone of Project 2025 is the proposed dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. The plan calls for transferring most of its responsibilities to other federal departments, such as moving civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice and student loan programs to the Department of the Treasury. Advocates argue that this restructuring returns power to states and families. However, the elimination of the Department would severely compromise the federal government’s ability to enforce educational equity and civil rights protections (Heritage Foundation, 2023). The Department’s Office for Civil Rights currently handles thousands of cases annually involving race, gender, and disability discrimination in schools. Without this centralized body, enforcement would become fragmented and inconsistent, forcing students and families to seek relief through lengthy legal battles (Jeffries, 2024).
Equally concerning are the proposed reductions in federal funding for K-12 education. Title I, which provides funding to schools serving low-income students, is slated for elimination under Project 2025. This would directly affect over 2.8 million students and result in the loss of more than 180,000 teaching positions nationwide (American Progress, 2024). IDEA funding for students with disabilities would also be block-granted to states with fewer restrictions, raising concerns about compliance with federally mandated services. The rollback of these funding streams would disproportionately impact marginalized and underserved communities, leading to increased class sizes, diminished support services, and widening achievement gaps (Brookings Institution, 2024). In addition to Title I, other vital programs such as Head Start and Impact Aid are expected to face severe budget cuts or elimination. These changes would significantly reduce the educational opportunities available to disadvantaged children across the country and increase the fiscal strain on already under-resourced school districts.
Project 2025 also emphasizes expanding school choice through the use of vouchers and ESAs. The idea is to allow public education funds to follow students to private schools or alternative educational services. While this may appear to increase parental agency, it risks diverting essential resources from public schools, undermining their capacity to serve high-needs students. Moreover, private schools receiving public funds are not held to the same accountability standards as public institutions and can legally discriminate based on religion, gender identity, and disability status (Leadership Conference Education Fund, 2024). These disparities would intensify social and educational stratification, particularly in rural and economically disadvantaged areas where private options are limited. States that have adopted voucher programs, such as Arizona and Florida, have shown mixed results in student outcomes and a growing disparity in educational quality. Project 2025 seeks to replicate these models on a national scale, which could exacerbate the existing inequities in educational access and performance.
In addition to financial and structural reforms, Project 2025 seeks to influence classroom content by promoting a national “Parents’ Bill of Rights” and restricting curricula it deems “anti-American.” Topics targeted include critical race theory, gender identity, and systemic racism. Such mandates could lead to widespread book bans, the removal of inclusive curriculum content, and a chilling effect on educators’ ability to discuss historical and social realities. PEN America (2024) warns that these measures would institutionalize censorship at a national level, limiting students’ exposure to diverse perspectives and undermining academic integrity. Teachers and librarians might self-censor to avoid litigation or job loss, creating a constrained educational environment antithetical to democratic values. The federal endorsement of parental control over educational content could also result in a fragmented educational landscape, where students in different states receive vastly different versions of history, science, and literature, depending on local political pressures.
Higher education institutions are not exempt from the sweeping changes proposed in Project 2025. The initiative seeks to eliminate DEI programs, restrict federal funding to universities that maintain such initiatives, and revise accreditation processes to curb what it sees as ideological bias. This includes removing references to sexual orientation and gender identity from federal education regulations and allowing states to accredit colleges, potentially introducing political influence into academic standards (Inside Higher Ed, 2024). Additionally, proposals to revoke student visas for international students involved in activism, particularly around Middle East politics, pose significant threats to academic freedom and campus diversity (PEN America, 2024). These actions would not only affect the institutional climate but also damage the international reputation of U.S. higher education as a space for open inquiry and diverse viewpoints. Colleges may face increased scrutiny for hosting controversial speakers or allowing student protests, potentially stifling debate and academic exploration.
Federal student aid programs are also on the chopping block. Project 2025 calls for ending direct federal student loans and transferring loan management to private banks or the Treasury. Income-driven repayment plans and forgiveness programs would be eliminated, increasing financial burdens on low- and middle-income students (National Education Association, 2024). This would likely reduce college access for underrepresented groups, exacerbating socioeconomic disparities in higher education attainment. Furthermore, the elimination of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other support programs for students entering teaching or public service fields could contribute to ongoing shortages in critical professions. The shift towards privatizing student loan administration also risks increasing interest rates and reducing protections for borrowers, further disincentivizing higher education for many Americans.
The broader implications of Project 2025 for educational equity and civil rights are profound. The removal of federal oversight and funding would likely widen the gap between affluent and under-resourced districts, returning the nation to a time when educational opportunity was largely determined by zip code. Civil rights protections for students of color, LGBTQ+ youth, and students with disabilities would be weakened or eliminated, and the chilling effect on curriculum would stifle open dialogue and critical thinking. Institutional autonomy in both K-12 and higher education would be compromised by political interference, undermining the independence and innovation that characterize American education. These outcomes would not only harm individual students but also weaken the overall societal fabric by diminishing shared understanding and civic engagement.
In conclusion, Project 2025 represents a radical reimagining of the role of the federal government in education. While it purports to promote freedom and parental rights, its policies would have the opposite effect for many students, stripping away protections, resources, and opportunities. Educators, policymakers, and the public must scrutinize these proposals not only for their ideological appeal but for their real-world consequences. The future of U.S. education, and the democratic principles it upholds, may well depend on this reckoning. A careful, critical, and inclusive approach to education policy is essential to ensure that all students—regardless of background—have access to a high-quality, equitable, and empowering education.
References
American Progress. (2024). Project 2025’s elimination of Title I funding would hurt students and decimate teaching positions. https://www.americanprogress.org
Brookings Institution. (2024). Project 2025 and Education: A lot of bad ideas, some more actionable than others. https://www.brookings.edu
Heritage Foundation. (2023). Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise. https://www.heritage.org
Inside Higher Ed. (2024). How Project 2025 Could Radically Reshape Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com
Jeffries, H. (2024). Statement on Project 2025 Education Proposals. Congressional Record.
Leadership Conference Education Fund. (2024). What’s At Stake for Education. https://civilrights.org
National Education Association. (2024). How Project 2025 Would Devastate Public Education. https://www.nea.org
PEN America. (2024). The Federal Censorship Agenda: Project 2025’s Threat to Education. https://pen.org