Trump’s plan to cut federal agencies: States take center stage in US education, FEMA – The Times of India

In a bold move to reduce the federal government’s role in everyday life, former President Donald Trump has unveiled plans to cut several federal agencies, shifting more power to the states. Among the most significant proposals is the elimination of the US Education Department and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Trump’s focus on returning power to states has become a central theme of his political platform as he pushes for a new era of “state-led” governance.
Trump’s actions are part of a broader strategy to streamline federal operations and give more control to local and state governments. As reported by The New York Times, Trump has consistently advocated for “moving it back to the states,” a mantra he first introduced during his 2015 presidential campaign. Now, as he approaches a potential second term, Trump is pushing this agenda even further, including policies that affect education and disaster response.
State control over education and disaster response
One of the most controversial aspects of Trump’s plan is his proposal to dismantle the US Education Department, which has been responsible for overseeing college financial aid, enforcing civil rights in schools, and supporting low-income students since its establishment in 1979. Trump has argued that states, rather than the federal government, should have full control over their education systems. As quoted by The New York Times, Trump’s executive order signed on March 20, 2024, titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” reflects his intent to shift responsibilities from the federal level to state governments.
This shift is not limited to education. Trump has also set his sights on FEMA, advocating for its elimination and suggesting that states would be better equipped to handle disaster management. FEMA’s principle of “locally executed, state managed, and federally supported” has been a cornerstone of emergency response, but Trump argues that the federal government’s involvement complicates disaster relief efforts. As reported by The New York Times, some state officials, particularly Republican governors, have shown support for these proposals, including Governors Ron DeSantis of Florida, Kim Reynolds of Iowa, and Mike DeWine of Ohio, who attended Trump’s executive order signing event.
The pushback from critics
While the proposal has found support among some Republicans, it has sparked significant backlash from Democrats and others concerned about the feasibility of such a shift. Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, a Democrat, described the plan as “a total shell game,” warning that it would shift the burden of responsibility and costs onto states that are unprepared to handle them. As reported by The New York Times, Healey emphasized that the federal government’s role in ensuring equal access to education and disaster relief cannot be easily replaced by states alone.
Critics also argue that Trump’s proposal to eliminate the Education Department could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, including students with disabilities and those from low-income backgrounds. Moving student loans to the Small Business Administration and support for students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services could create more bureaucratic hurdles, according to experts.
A deeper look at Trump’s broader agenda
Trump’s move to dismantle federal agencies is in line with his broader political agenda of reducing the size of government. This reflects his long-standing stance against what he views as an overreach of federal power. As noted by The New York Times, the move to return power to the states is rooted in conservative ideals, dating back to the Nixon administration’s “New Federalism” initiative. However, the practicality and implications of such a drastic shift remain unclear, with state leaders divided on the issue.
In the coming months, Trump’s policies will likely remain a point of contention in the 2024 presidential race, as the debate over federal vs. state control of critical services like education and disaster response continues to unfold.