The Five Shockwaves: Unpacking Donald Trump’s Viral 'Department Of Education Is A Con Job' Tweet And 2025 Policy Plan

The debate over the U.S. Department of Education (ED) has been reignited in late 2025, largely centered on former President Donald J. Trump’s consistent and highly publicized promise to "abolish" the agency, a stance he often encapsulated in a viral tweet and statement calling the department a "con job." This recurring theme is not just campaign rhetoric; it is a foundational policy position that has shaped his past administration and is central to his future agenda, reflecting a deep-seated belief that education should be governed entirely by states and local communities, free from federal overreach. This article provides an in-depth analysis of the policy proposals and political philosophy that underpin the former President's controversial statements, examining the specific actions taken during his first term and the detailed plans currently being discussed for a potential second term. The intention behind the original "con job" tweet was to highlight the perceived disconnect between massive federal spending on education—where the US ranks first in cost per pupil—and mediocre student performance, which he cited as 40th globally.

The Recurring Promise: A Timeline of the 'Abolish ED' Stance

The idea of eliminating or significantly shrinking the Department of Education is not new to the Republican platform, dating back to President Ronald Reagan's administration in the 1980s. However, Donald Trump amplified this concept, making it a distinct and personal policy cornerstone, often communicated directly to the public through social media and rally speeches. * 2016 Campaign Promise: The initial promise to dismantle the ED was a staple of his first presidential campaign, arguing it would return control to parents and local districts. * Betsy DeVos Nomination (2017): His selection of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education was seen as a clear signal of this intent. DeVos, a long-time advocate for school choice and reduced federal involvement, spent her tenure working to limit the federal government's role in education policy. * The "Con Job" Statement (Multiple Occurrences): Trump has repeatedly stated that the ED is a "con job," pointing to the high cost per pupil and the country's relatively low international student ranking as evidence of its failure. * Executive Orders (2017-2020): During his presidency, he signed executive orders aimed at shrinking the department and shifting many of its functions back to the states, a significant step toward dismantling the agency. * The Elon Musk Interview (Post-Presidency): In a high-profile interview, Trump reiterated that one of his first acts upon returning to office would be to "close the Department of Education, move education back to the states." This statement served as a fresh, high-impact "tweet-like" confirmation of his enduring policy goal.

Five Core Policies Behind the 'Department of Education is a Con Job' Tweet

The viral tweet and subsequent statements are merely the tip of the iceberg, serving as a political soundbite for a comprehensive, multi-faceted policy agenda. Here are the five central pillars of his plan to reshape American education.

1. Total Abolition or Radical Downsizing of the ED

The most dramatic proposal is the complete elimination or radical restructuring of the U.S. Department of Education. Proponents argue that the ED, created in 1979, has led to bureaucratic bloat and unnecessary federal mandates that stifle innovation at the local level. The plan involves transferring key functions—such as student loan management and data collection—to other federal agencies or directly to the states. This move is framed as a way to "unshackle" teachers and give parents and states greater control over their children's schooling. The ultimate goal is to remove the federal government's influence on curriculum and school operations.

2. The 1776 Commission and 'Patriotic Education'

A major policy initiative stemming from the "anti-indoctrination" theme is the re-establishment of the 1776 Commission. This advisory committee was initially created in 2020 via an executive order to promote "patriotic education" and counter what Trump termed "radical indoctrination" in K-12 schooling. The Commission's work is a direct response to curricula like the 1619 Project and is intended to champion a more traditional, civics-focused view of American history. This policy is often paired with threats to cut federal funding for schools that continue to teach concepts like Critical Race Theory (CRT) or other controversial materials that defy the administration's guidelines.

3. Aggressive Use of Federal Funding as Leverage

Trump's vision involves using federal education funds—even if the ED is abolished—as a powerful tool to enforce his agenda. He has promised to cut funding for schools that do not comply with his mandates on various social and curricular issues, including policies related to gender identity and "wokeness." This approach effectively transforms the federal government’s role from a partner to a powerful enforcer, despite the overall goal of reduced federal control. This financial leverage would be used to promote specific conservative values and policies at the state level.

4. Expansion of School Choice and Vouchers

A core tenet of the Trump/DeVos education era was the aggressive promotion of School Choice, including charter schools and voucher programs. DeVos, in particular, advocated for the privatization of public schools and the redirection of public funds to private, charter, or religious institutions. The argument is that competition improves school quality and gives parents, especially those in failing districts, the power to choose the best educational environment for their children. This policy would likely see significant new federal initiatives designed to incentivize states to adopt comprehensive voucher systems.

5. Reversal of Obama-Era Title IX and Civil Rights Guidance

During his first term, the Trump administration, through Secretary DeVos, took steps to revise and limit the federal government’s role in civil rights enforcement, particularly concerning sexual misconduct and student discipline. The administration revised Title IX guidance, raising the standard of proof for sexual assault claims on college campuses. A second term would likely see a continuation of this trend, with the aim of reducing the federal government’s investigative power and threats to withhold funding in these areas, thereby returning more control over student conduct and civil rights compliance to individual institutions.

The Future of Federal Education Control: What a Second Term Could Mean

The policy framework underpinning the "abolish ED" tweet has been significantly detailed by conservative think tanks, notably through initiatives like Project 2025. This project outlines a comprehensive plan for a new administration, which includes the complete dismantling of the Department of Education and the transfer of its functions. The key battleground is the concept of Local Control vs. Federal Overreach. Proponents of the Trump plan argue that the current structure is an inefficient bureaucracy that fails students, as evidenced by stagnant or falling standardized test scores. They contend that local school boards, teachers, and parents are better equipped to make decisions tailored to their communities. Conversely, opponents, including many educators and Democratic policymakers, argue that abolishing the ED would be catastrophic, leading to: * Loss of Civil Rights Protection: The federal government's role is crucial for enforcing landmark legislation like Title IX and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). * Disruption of Student Aid: The transfer of massive federal financial aid programs (Pell Grants, student loans) to other departments or state hands would create massive administrative chaos. * Undermining Public Education: Critics argue that the push for vouchers and school choice is designed to defund and ultimately dismantle the public school system, disproportionately harming students in low-income and rural areas. In late 2025, the "Trump Department of Education tweet" has become a shorthand for this high-stakes political and cultural war over the future of American schooling. It represents a fundamental choice between a centralized federal role and a decentralized system focused on state and parental authority. The outcome of this policy debate will define the educational landscape for the next generation of American students.