House Republicans advanced ten bills that would transfer student aid, K–12, higher-education and workforce programs from the U.S. Department of Education to other federal agencies, moving Congress closer to a possible breakup of the department.
Editorial Note
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes and does not constitute legal, financial or political advice. It is based on congressional materials, proposed legislation and public reporting available as of the publication date.
The House Education and Workforce Committee approved the legislation on July 15, 2026, and national higher-education reporting followed on July 16. Although the proposals remained part of the federal education conversation during the July 21 news cycle, they were not first approved on July 21.
Committee approval does not make the bills law. Each proposal would still need to pass the full House and Senate and be signed by the president. The legislation also does not immediately abolish the Department of Education as a legal entity, although it would remove many of the agency’s most important responsibilities.
House Republicans have taken a major legislative step toward breaking apart the U.S. Department of Education.
On July 15, the House Committee on Education and Workforce approved ten bills collectively described by Republican leaders as the “Less Bureaucracy, Better Education” package. The proposals would transfer major education offices, programs, employees and legal responsibilities from the Department of Education to other federal agencies.
The package would move federal student aid to the Treasury Department, send several K–12 and higher-education responsibilities to the Department of Labor and relocate other education programs to agencies such as Health and Human Services and the Interior Department.
Supporters describe the plan as a way to reduce bureaucracy, improve accountability and place federal programs inside agencies they believe are better equipped to manage them.
Opponents argue that it would scatter education policy across the federal government, create new administrative confusion and weaken the specialized expertise needed to protect students, distribute aid and oversee federal education laws.
The committee’s action does not close the Education Department. It does, however, offer the clearest congressional framework yet for making the administration’s attempted restructuring more permanent.
What the House Committee Approved
The committee approved ten separate bills rather than one proposal formally abolishing the Department of Education.
Together, the bills would transfer programs associated with student aid, K–12 education, higher education, career and technical education, foreign gifts, international education, student-parent child care and tribal education.
The package includes:
H.R. 9607, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act
H.R. 9609, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act
H.R. 9602, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Gift Transparency Act
H.R. 9603, the Less Bureaucracy, Better International Education Oversight Act
H.R. 9605, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Foreign Medical Accreditation Act
H.R. 9606, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Child Care for Student Parents Act
H.R. 9611, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act
H.R. 9610, the Less Bureaucracy, Better K–12 Education Act
H.R. 9608, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Family Engagement Act
H.R. 9604, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Tribal Education Act.
Republican committee leaders said the package would begin codifying the administration’s effort to “right-size” the department. Chairman Tim Walberg argued that the existing federal system has failed to produce acceptable academic and financial results.
Democrats described the same package as an attempt to dismantle the department without demonstrating that the receiving agencies could administer education programs more effectively.
Federal Student Aid Would Move to the Treasury Department
One of the most consequential proposals is H.R. 9609, the Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act.
The bill would transfer federal student-loan operations and other student-aid responsibilities from the education secretary to the Treasury Department. The proposal covers loan servicing, repayment, collections, borrower disputes and credit reporting.
It would also transfer responsibility for programs including Pell Grants, Federal Work-Study, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Direct Loans, Perkins Loans and student-aid eligibility and certification procedures.
That would place Treasury in charge of much more than collecting overdue debt.
The department would oversee the financial system through which millions of students and families receive grants and loans to attend colleges, universities and career programs.
Supporters may view Treasury as a natural home for a loan portfolio involving approximately $1.7 trillion in debt. They argue that a department centered on finance, collections and economic policy may manage the portfolio more efficiently.
Critics respond that federal student aid is not merely a debt-collection operation. It is an education-access system that requires coordination with colleges, financial-aid offices, students and laws governing institutional eligibility.
Moving the program could alter how the federal government balances repayment enforcement with the educational purpose of financial assistance.
Pell Grants Would Not Automatically Disappear
The proposal should not be described as eliminating Pell Grants.
H.R. 9609 would transfer responsibility for administering Pell Grants to Treasury. The bill does not simply repeal the program. It also contains provisions addressing the transfer of employees, funding, records, contracts and legal authority connected to the affected functions.
That distinction matters for students.
A transferred program can continue operating, but moving it to another department may still produce temporary delays, new procedures or changes in institutional oversight.
Students completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid could eventually interact with systems managed by Treasury rather than the Education Department.
Colleges might also have to adjust reporting, compliance and communication processes.
The practical impact would depend on implementation, staffing and whether the receiving agency preserved existing systems during the transition.
K–12 Programs Would Move Toward the Labor Department
Another major proposal, H.R. 9610, would transfer the functions of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Reporting on the package says those responsibilities would be moved to the Department of Labor. The office currently administers important federal K–12 programs and grant responsibilities affecting state education agencies and school districts.
The idea is controversial because the Labor Department’s core mission centers on employment, workplace standards and workforce development rather than elementary and secondary education.
Republicans argue that education should prepare students for meaningful work and economic independence. Placing some programs within Labor could, in their view, strengthen connections among schools, career preparation and employers.
Opponents argue that K–12 education has purposes extending well beyond immediate workforce preparation.
Schools teach literacy, mathematics, science, history, citizenship and social development. Federal programs also support disadvantaged students, English learners, rural districts and schools facing persistent academic challenges.
A workforce agency may not automatically possess the educational expertise needed to administer those programs.
Career, Technical and Adult Education Would Also Move to Labor
H.R. 9607 would transfer the Office of Career, Technical and Adult Education’s responsibilities to the Labor Department.
The proposal covers programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. It also includes adult literacy, high-school equivalency and efforts helping adult learners transition into postsecondary education and employment.
This transfer may appear more logically connected to Labor than the movement of general K–12 programs.
Career education, apprenticeships, workforce training and adult literacy already overlap with employment policy.
The bill would also transfer associated personnel, records, assets and unspent funding. It directs the Office of Management and Budget to ensure the restructuring does not cause a net increase in federal employees across the affected agencies.
Even here, coordination would remain critical.
Career and technical education is delivered through high schools, community colleges and other educational institutions. Separating the program from the agency administering related education policies could solve one coordination problem while creating another.
Higher-Education Oversight Would Be Divided
Other bills in the package would move significant higher-education responsibilities to the Labor Department and additional agencies.
The proposed restructuring would affect federal programs related to colleges, student-parent child care, international education, foreign gifts and overseas medical-school accreditation.
The higher-education changes received considerable attention during the committee’s six-hour markup. Democrats introduced amendments seeking investigations, staffing protections and delays before transfers could take effect. None of the 31 Democratic amendments was approved.
Supporters said the proposals would focus higher education more directly on employment outcomes and reduce ideological interference.
Critics warned that universities could end up reporting to several agencies with different missions, systems and interpretations of federal law.
That fragmentation could be especially challenging for smaller colleges with limited compliance staff.
The Bills Would Codify Existing Interagency Arrangements
The administration has already entered into agreements allowing other agencies to perform parts of the Education Department’s work.
The ten bills would make ten of fourteen reported interagency arrangements more permanent. They would also go beyond administrative cooperation by transferring statutory responsibilities currently assigned to the education secretary.
This difference is legally important.
An interagency agreement may allow one agency to help another administer a program while the original agency retains final legal authority.
A congressional transfer changes which cabinet secretary possesses that authority.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon has presented the administrative agreements as evidence that federal education programs can operate without remaining inside a stand-alone Education Department. Critics say the need for legislation demonstrates that the executive branch cannot legally complete such transfers on its own.
Congress has the power to reorganize federal agencies and amend the statutes assigning responsibilities to them.
That is why committee approval represents a more durable step than an internal agreement signed by executive officials.
Does This Abolish the Department of Education?
Not yet.
The bills would remove numerous functions, but they do not by themselves complete the formal abolition of the agency.
The Department of Education was established by federal law. Eliminating it entirely requires congressional action, not only an executive order or administrative reorganization.
Even if all ten bills became law, questions would remain about offices and responsibilities not included in the package.
Inside Higher Ed reported that the proposals correspond to ten of the administration’s fourteen interagency agreements, meaning the package does not address every part of the restructuring effort.
A more precise description is that the bills would break up major parts of the department and move the federal government closer to operating education programs without one central education agency.
Calling the committee vote a completed abolition would overstate what happened.
What Would Happen to Education Department Employees?
The legislation generally contemplates transferring employees and resources associated with the affected programs.
For example, H.R. 9607 states that personnel, contracts, records, property and unspent funds connected to transferred career and adult-education functions would move to the Labor Department.
The bill also directs the Office of Management and Budget to prevent the restructuring from increasing the combined number of full-time employees at the affected agencies.
This could create difficult personnel questions.
Some employees may transfer to different departments. Others could face reassignment, restructuring or elimination of their positions.
Specialized employees may possess years of experience interpreting education laws, reviewing grants and working with state agencies or colleges.
Transferring a statutory program is relatively easy to describe in legislation. Transferring institutional knowledge is harder.
The success of the plan would depend partly on whether experienced employees remain with the programs.
Republicans Say the Existing Department Has Failed
Republican committee leaders framed the package as a response to disappointing academic results and federal mismanagement.
Walberg cited low reading and mathematics performance, college students leaving without degrees and problems within the federal student-loan system. He argued that preserving the current department should not take priority over improving outcomes.
The Republican argument is not necessarily that federal education programs should all disappear.
Instead, many of the bills would keep the programs while placing them elsewhere.
That approach allows supporters to say they are reducing education bureaucracy without immediately eliminating popular assistance such as Pell Grants or career-training funds.
The political question is whether moving programs improves them—or merely changes the address of the officials administering them.
Democrats Say the Plan Could Create More Bureaucracy
Committee Democrats argued that dividing education responsibilities among Treasury, Labor, Health and Human Services, Interior and other agencies would make federal oversight more complicated.
Ranking Democrat Bobby Scott warned that the proposals could create additional red tape and waste taxpayer money. Other Democratic members said states, colleges and grant recipients were already experiencing uncertainty from the administration’s interagency transfers.
Their concern is that one centralized department could be replaced by several separate bureaucracies.
A school district might need to communicate with Labor about one grant, another agency about family-engagement programs and a different department about student services.
Universities could face similar fragmentation involving aid, international education, child care and institutional oversight.
Reducing the size of one department does not automatically reduce the total amount of federal administration.
What About Special Education?
The ten-bill package does not appear to include the administration’s proposed transfer of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
That issue has generated resistance even among some Republicans.
Inside Higher Ed reported that Senate education committee chairman Bill Cassidy opposed moving the special-education office to the Department of Health and Human Services and favored a different approach.
The omission is significant.
Special education is one of the most legally sensitive areas of federal education policy. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act creates enforceable rights and detailed responsibilities for states and school districts.
Disability advocates have warned that moving special education into a health-focused agency could encourage officials to treat disability primarily as a medical issue rather than an educational-rights matter.
Because special education is not included in the current House package, families should not assume that the July 15 committee vote transferred IDEA oversight.
That debate remains separate and unresolved.
What Could Change for Students and Families?
Students would probably not experience an immediate change simply because a House committee approved the bills.
The legislation still has several stages to complete.
If enacted, however, families could eventually notice new websites, application procedures, complaint channels and agency contacts.
College students might interact with Treasury for financial aid. School districts could submit grant materials to Labor or other departments. Families seeking information about federal programs might have to navigate several agencies rather than one central education department.
Existing benefits would not necessarily end, but administrative transitions can create confusion even when Congress intends programs to continue.
The most important question for families is not the name of the agency on a document.
It is whether aid arrives on time, complaints are answered, grants are administered consistently and legal protections remain enforceable.
What Could Change for States and School Districts?
State education agencies depend on federal guidance, grant schedules and technical assistance.
A transfer could require new agreements, reporting systems and working relationships with unfamiliar federal officials.
Large states may possess the staff needed to manage the change. Smaller states, rural districts and under-resourced institutions may struggle more.
The bills contain provisions intended to preserve pending proceedings, legal orders and existing funding purposes. For example, H.R. 9607 says pending applications and proceedings should continue and that transferred funds must be used for their originally authorized purposes.
Those protections may reduce disruption on paper.
Implementation would determine whether they work in practice.
The Senate May Be the Larger Obstacle
Committee passage is only an early legislative step.
The bills would need approval from the full House. The Senate would then have to pass the same legislation or negotiate a compromise version.
Most major legislation requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate unless special procedural rules apply.
Republicans therefore may need Democratic support, depending on how the proposals reach the chamber and how Senate leaders structure the debate.
Resistance from Republican senators over issues such as special education also suggests that the House package may not move through the Senate unchanged.
The committee vote demonstrates political commitment, but it does not guarantee enactment.
Why This Is an Educational-Law Story
The controversy is not simply about whether one federal department is useful.
Each program involved was created or governed by statutes assigning duties to a particular federal officer or agency.
Changing those assignments requires legislation.
The bills would alter who issues regulations, manages grants, oversees compliance and answers legal challenges.
They could also affect how courts interpret agency authority because references to the education secretary would, for transferred functions, point to a different cabinet secretary.
This makes the package a structural change to federal education law, not merely an administrative reorganization.
How New To Education Supports Students, Families and Educators
New To Education publishes accessible reporting and analysis on federal education law, student rights, school policy and changes affecting colleges and public-school systems.
We also support students, educators, professionals and organizations through tutoring, educational consulting, curriculum assistance, career preparation, web development and educational marketing.
Federal restructuring can sound distant from everyday education. Its consequences become real when a student applies for aid, a school seeks grant funding or a family needs help enforcing an educational right.
Learn more about New To Education:
Key Takeaways
The House Education and Workforce Committee approved ten “Less Bureaucracy, Better Education” bills on July 15, 2026.
The bills would transfer major Education Department functions to other agencies rather than immediately eliminate every federal education program.
Federal student loans, Pell Grants, Work-Study and other student-aid responsibilities would move to the Treasury Department under H.R. 9609.
Career, technical and adult-education programs would move to the Labor Department under H.R. 9607, while additional proposals would transfer K–12, higher-education and family-support responsibilities.
Republicans say the package would reduce bureaucracy and improve outcomes. Democrats argue that dividing education programs among several agencies would create confusion, weaken expertise and increase red tape.
The bills have not become law. They must still pass the full House and Senate and receive presidential approval.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Congress abolish the Department of Education?
No. A House committee approved ten bills that would transfer many of the department’s responsibilities. The full Congress has not enacted them.
When did the committee approve the bills?
The House Education and Workforce Committee approved the package on July 15, 2026.
Would Pell Grants be eliminated?
The proposed student-aid bill would transfer Pell Grant administration to the Treasury Department. It does not simply repeal Pell Grants.
Would student loans move to Treasury?
Yes, if H.R. 9609 becomes law. Treasury would receive broad responsibility for federal student-loan servicing, collections, repayment and other student-aid functions.
Would K–12 programs disappear?
Not necessarily. Major responsibilities would be transferred to other agencies, including the Department of Labor, under the proposed package.
Does the package transfer special-education oversight?
The ten-bill package does not include the proposed transfer of the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. That remains a separate controversy.
Why are Republicans pursuing the changes?
Supporters say the Education Department has failed to produce adequate academic outcomes and has mismanaged federal programs. They believe other agencies can administer the responsibilities more efficiently.
Why do Democrats oppose the package?
Opponents argue that dividing programs across several departments would create more bureaucracy, disrupt services and weaken specialized education expertise.
What happens next?
The bills may be considered by the full House. They would also require Senate passage and presidential approval before taking effect.
Final Thoughts
The July 15 committee vote did not eliminate the Department of Education.
It did something potentially more consequential than another political promise: it translated the administration’s restructuring plan into actual legislation.
The proposals would preserve many recognizable programs while removing them from the department created to administer federal education policy.
That may appeal to lawmakers who want to reduce the agency without immediately confronting voters with the elimination of Pell Grants, career education or K–12 assistance.
Whether the plan reduces bureaucracy is uncertain.
Moving student aid to Treasury may improve debt management, but student aid is also a pathway into higher education. Moving school programs to Labor may strengthen workforce alignment, but education is broader than employment preparation.
The central question is not whether the Education Department deserves criticism. Large federal systems should be evaluated, reformed and held accountable.
The question is whether dividing that system among several agencies would solve its problems or reproduce them in less visible places.
For students and families, the answer will ultimately be measured in practical terms.
Does financial aid arrive? Can schools access funding? Do families know where to file complaints? Are federal education laws enforced consistently?
Changing the name on the office door is easy.
Building a system that works better after the move will be much harder.
Support New To Education
New To Education publishes independent reporting and analysis on educational law, federal policy, student access and changes affecting schools, colleges and families.
Readers can support this work by sharing our articles, exploring our educational and professional services or contributing through the donation options available on our website.
Related Articles
Texas Finds Federal Special-Education Violations in Houston ISD Overhaul
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/texas-finds-federal-special-education-violations-in-houston-isd-overhaul-6a5f0cebc45c1
New York’s Education Oversight Debate: What Happened and Why It Matters
https://newtoeducation.com/view-blog/new-yorks-education-oversight-debate-what-happened-and-why-it-matters-6a2fd83a4782c
Sources
House Committee on Education and Workforce — Committee Passes “Less Bureaucracy, Better Education” Legislative Package
https://edworkforce.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=413568
House Committee on Education and Workforce — H.R. 9607, Less Bureaucracy, Better Workforce Development Act
https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._9607.pdf
House Committee on Education and Workforce — H.R. 9609, Less Bureaucracy, Better Student Aid Act
https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._9609.pdf
House Committee on Education and Workforce — H.R. 9610, Less Bureaucracy, Better K–12 Education Act
https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._9610.pdf
House Committee on Education and Workforce — H.R. 9611, Less Bureaucracy, Better Higher Education Act
https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/h.r._9611.pdf
Inside Higher Ed — House Republicans Advance Legislation to Formally Dismantle the Education Department
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/2026/07/16/house-republicans-advance-legislation-formally-dismantle-ed
