This analysis was prepared by Venable, LLP on behalf of AACOM.
Memorandum
Committee: House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (LHHS) Subcommittee
Subject: Budget Hearing - U.S. Department of Education (DOE) (link)
Date: May 21, 2025
During the House Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee hearing on the DOE FY26 budget, members focused discussion with Secretary McMahon on NAEP outcomes, including declining reading, math and science scores despite trillions in federal spending, urging a return to fundamentals, literacy focus and school choice through charters and vouchers. Secretary McMahon pledged to intensify evidence‑based reading grants, expand choice, and devolve control to states; she plans assessment‑aligned funding, workforce reduction, and 40% cuts to unused research contracts while maintaining Title I and IDEA. Democrats demanded transparency on proposed cuts, warning block‑grant proposals would slash K‑12 support and violate Congressional prerogatives. Debate covered student loans, with GOP citing cost concerns and Democrats decrying cuts to need‑based aid.
Witnesses
Linda McMahon, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) / Nation’s Report Card
Chair Robert Aderholt (R-Ala) opened the hearing by highlighting the steep decline in student achievement. He noted that despite record federal spending, test scores have plummeted – citing NAEP data showing one-third of eighth graders read below the basic level and overall scores remain lower than 2019, indicating students haven’t recovered from pandemic learning loss. Aderholt warned that ever-increasing funding has not improved outcomes, and he urged a return to fundamentals, arguing that some schools (with federal encouragement) have shifted focus to “divisive” social issues at the expense of core academics.
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) echoed concerns about stagnant academic progress. He pointed out that since the Department’s creation in 1980, taxpayers have spent nearly $3 trillion on education, yet reading and math performance has flatlined or even declined according to NAEP – a trend he called unacceptable. Clyde suggested that simply pouring in more money is not yielding results and that bold changes are needed to improve basic skills.
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) emphasized the importance of foundational skills and early benchmarks. He praised the Se cretary’s focus on literacy and added that strong engagement in middle-school math is critical, as students who master math early are far more likely to pursue and excel in science and technology later on. Moolenaar encouraged the Department to foster innovative strategies (including public-private partnerships) to boost math achievement – giving the example of robotics kits in classrooms, which have helped motivate students who were previously disengaged in math.
Rep. Andy Harris (R–Md.) warned that fourth‑grade reading scores are worsening nationally despite a 20 percent surge in federal education spending, declaring the Department of Education a “failing” agency and urging its role be pared back to targeted support (e.g., schools near military bases and under‑resourced rural districts) or block‑granted to states. He championed competition through charter schools and a newly proposed federal voucher program in reconciliation, decried wasteful pandemic spending (noting Baltimore spent $57,000 on administrator cell phones instead of literacy), and called for adoption of the “Mississippi miracle” model—backed by studies like Tennessee’s STAR program—which enforces third‑grade reading proficiency.
Rep. Stephanie Bice (R–Okla.) lambasted the Department of Education as an “abject failure” amid plummeting reading, math, and science scores and praised Oklahoma’s embrace of charter schools and expanded school choice—citing Good Shepherd for students with autism and Mission Academy for youth battling substance abuse—and noted her own decision to send her children to a private faith‑based school. She contrasted the Department’s average $112,000 salary with Oklahoma teachers’ $61,000 pay and asked for detailed plans to cut waste, fraud, and abuse—while preserving Title I‑A and IDEA funding—and to devolve authority back to the states.
Secretary Linda McMahon agreed that student proficiency in core subjects must be the priority. In her testimony, she identified three top goals as Education Secretary: (1) intensifying efforts to improve literacy, (2) expanding school choice so students aren’t trapped in failing schools, and (3) returning more control over education to states. McMahon stressed that literacy is “the absolute basis” for all learning, and she plans to direct the Department’s competitive grants toward evidence-based reading programs to begin reversing the troubling NAEP trends. She also noted that increasing choices for families is part of her strategy to address chronically low-performing schools.
Student Assessments and Academic Basics
Secretary McMahon emphasized refocusing on measuring and improving fundamental skills in K-12 education. She testified that the Department’s budget and programs should concentrate on “the basics” – with literacy at the forefront – as a means of boosting student outcomes. McMahon intends to align federal resources (like grants) toward reading and math initiatives, viewing these core competencies as the key metrics of educational success.
Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Mich.) reinforced the Secretary’s point by highlighting how early assessment and reinforcement of basics can alter students’ trajectories. He pointed out that if students grasp math in middle school, it “opens up doorways” to advanced science and technical subjects later on. If they fall behind, many may disengage, losing potential talent in STEM fields. Moolenaar suggested that the Department support innovative assessment-aligned interventions – for example, hands-on programs like robotics competitions that both teach math skills and allow educators to gauge student progress in a practical way. This, he argued, would help keep students interested and on track in mathematics.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) additionally noted that focusing on core academic assessments should go hand-in-hand with curriculum priorities. In his view, federal policy had encouraged some schools to divert attention to peripheral matters, so he called for using assessments to redirect attention back to reading, writing, and arithmetic. Aderholt asserted that accountability in testing should ensure that fundamental subjects are not “crowded out” by other agendas.
Transparency, Measuring Success, and Program Accountability
Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) praised the proposed budget for targeting inefficiencies and insisted that accountability to students and taxpayers must improve. He argued that the FY26 budget’s cuts to “wasteful and duplicative programs” are a step in the right direction, because they would trim bureaucracy and make the education system more responsive to student needs. Clyde also pushed back on the idea that reducing the federal footprint would shortchange classrooms – asking whether streamlining the Department might actually ensure more dollars reach students rather than being absorbed by administration. (The Secretary agreed that each dollar cut from bureaucracy is intended to go toward students.)
Democratic Members pressed the Secretary for greater transparency into how success is defined, and which programs were deemed ineffective. Multiple Democrats noted that the Administration had provided only sparse detail about the $12 billion in proposed cuts. They repeatedly asked why certain grants and initiatives were selected for elimination and demanded to see any evidence or evaluations justifying those decisions. For example, one member referenced longstanding, bipartisan college-access programs (TRIO and GEAR UP) that the budget would drop, and challenged the Secretary to produce studies or data supporting the notion that these programs are no longer needed. The sentiment was that decisions seemed driven by political motives (or “some construct… the President or Elon Musk has come up with”) rather than by measurable results.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was especially forceful, accusing the Department of a lack of accountability to Congress and the public. She noted that officials have not provided information on the criteria used to freeze or cancel various grants, calling it unacceptable that lawmakers cannot get basic explanations. DeLauro also reminded Secretary McMahon that by law, the Department must carry out the programs and funding as appropriated: she asked the Secretary to commit to fully obligating all funds Congress set aside (for instance, for K-12 mental health services) rather than “impounding” them unilaterally. She stressed Article I powers – that Congress controls funding – and warned that withholding appropriated money or dismantling programs without approval would be viewed as a breach of accountability and potentially unlawful. (In response, McMahon would only say that the Department is “evaluating every single program” for effectiveness and would “get back” to the Committee with details, which did not fully satisfy the concern.)
Department of Education Downsizing and Block Grants to States
Republican Members endorsed the Administration’s plan to dramatically shrink the Department and shift authority to states. Chair Aderholt commended Secretary McMahon for “hitting the ground running” on President Trump’s bold agenda to restore education control to the states. He observed that the federal government provides only about one-tenth of education funding, arguing that education fundamentally “remains within the purview of states and local communities”. In line with this philosophy, Rep. Andrew Clyde highlighted President Trump’s March 28, 2025 executive order beginning to dismantle the Department of Education. He asked McMahon to clarify that, even as the Department shrinks, the budget would preserve key formula funding (specifically Title I aid for low-income schools and IDEA special education grants) so that essential resources still flow to students.
Secretary McMahon confirmed that her “mission” is to wind down the federal Department and eliminate bureaucratic waste, while redirecting focus to local empowerment. She testified that the FY26 request would cut the Department’s budget by over 15%, achieved by consolidating or ending numerous programs and reducing staffing that she described as “overstaffed by thousands” of positions. McMahon detailed steps already taken: terminating outdated contracts, suspending what she characterized as illegal diversity/equity initiatives, and offering voluntary separation incentives (in the style of Elon Musk’s approach) that resulted in significant workforce reductions. The intent, she explained, is to shrink the Washington bureaucracy and let states decide how to use education funds with fewer federal strings attached.
Democrats vehemently opposed the dismantling of the Department and conversion of funds into state block grants. Ranking Member DeLauro argued that the Administration is effectively trying to eliminate the Department of Education – a move she called decades-old Republican ideology that she vowed to resist. She warned McMahon that Congress alone has the authority to abolish the Department or redirect its funding, and pointed out that, under the current continuing resolution, the Department must operate under FY24 funding and provisions until Congress decides otherwise. DeLauro expressed alarm that the Secretary had already frozen hundreds of millions of dollars and even cut the Department’s workforce in half without Congressional approval, actions she described as “recklessly incapacitating” the agency and usurping the legislature’s constitutional power of the purse.
Block Grant Proposal: Rep. DeLauro and others zeroed in on the budget’s plan to block-grant K-12 funds to states. The proposal would eliminate 18 federal education programs – presumably including targeted initiatives for areas like teacher training, arts, community schools, etc. – and replace them with a single $2 billion grant that states could use broadly. She noted that even with that consolidation, the overall K-12 funding in the request is $4.5 billion less than current levels. Democrats argued that “a block grant is a cut” and predicted that governors and state school systems, already stretched thin, would be unable to make up the difference if federal support drops so sharply. DeLauro castigated the plan as one that will lead to larger class sizes, fewer teachers, and vanishing programs, especially in high-need areas – in short, an abandonment of the federal government’s responsibility to public education. She characterized the whole effort as a “dangerous dismantling of public education” that would harm middle- and working-class children the most, widening the gap between wealthy communities and those in need.
Authority and Legal Constraints: Throughout the hearing, Democrats reminded the Secretary that she lacks unilateral authority to carry out many of these structural changes. They cited legal opinions (even one by the late Justice Scalia) affirming that a President or agency head cannot simply abolish a Cabinet department without Congress. Rep. DeLauro pressed McMahon on this point, asserting that the President’s actions and the Department’s freezes on funding are already being successfully challenged in court, and that if the Department “flagrantly” defies federal law or Congressional intent, it will continue to lose in court.
Higher Education: Student Loans and Financial Aid
Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) addressed the state of the federal student loan system and recent loan forgiveness efforts. He argued that the prior administration “somehow made a broken financial aid system worse” by using executive actions to cancel debt and by implementing more generous repayment plans without Congress. Aderholt cited a Congressional Budget Office projection that the direct student loan program – which was meant to save money when it replaced private lenders in 2010 – is now expected to cost taxpayers $0.18 on the dollar for new loans in 2025, contrary to initial promises of savings. He blamed confusing signals about loan forgiveness for the fact that, after a three-year payment pause, millions of borrowers have not resumed paying: Aderholt noted the Department’s own estimate that roughly 10 million borrowers are delinquent or in default now that payments are required again, while only about 38% of borrowers are current on their loans. He told Secretary McMahon that she had “inherited an absolute mess” in student aid, but expressed hope that her team can course-correct and restore fiscal stability to the program.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) focused on the budget’s impact on low-income college students. She blasted the Department’s proposal to eliminate several need-based aid programs, including grants and work-study jobs that help disadvantaged students afford higher education. DeLauro specified that approximately 1.7 million students would lose federal need-based tuition grants and over 500,000 students would lose the opportunity to work on campus through the Work-Study program under the FY26 plan. She argued that these eliminations would “pull up the ladder” for students of modest means at a time when costs are rising. In her view, the children of wealthy families (including, as she pointedly mentioned, the grandchildren of President Trump, Elon Musk, or even the Secretary herself) will “be just fine” without federal aid, but those from middle-class and poor families would suffer. DeLauro stressed that many students rely on these programs to get through college, often while working jobs to make ends meet. She contended that it’s the federal government’s role to ensure such opportunities remain available. Democrats argued the budget cuts would worsen inequality in college access, while Republicans like Aderholt countered that unchecked spending and loan forgiveness have endangered the program’s long-term viability.