Dismantling Education

How the Trump Administration’s policies are stripping protections, deepening inequities, and endangering the future of public education.

A stylized illustration of a wrestling match features an older woman with curly white hair, glasses, and a blue tracksuit labeled “AMERICAN EDUCATION” on the back. She is pinning down a muscular blonde wrestler dressed in a patriotic outfit with stars and stripes. The wrestler is lying face-down on the mat, seemingly defeated. The background shows a cheering crowd in a wrestling arena, with warm hues of a sunset sky. The image conveys a metaphorical struggle.

In just the first few months of 2025, the Trump administration has pursued an aggressive overhaul of the U.S. education system, with policies that threaten to dismantle federal oversight, eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives, and prioritize punitive discipline over supportive interventions. For students with disabilities, particularly those who are Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC), these policies are a direct attack on their rights — accelerating their path through the School-to-Prison Pipeline and rolling back decades of progress under disability and civil rights laws.

The Looming Threat

The Department of Education (ED) serves as a safeguard against discrimination, ensuring equal access to education for students with disabilities. Through laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Department monitors racial and disability discrimination, enforces students’ right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and oversees states’ compliance with special education laws.

Now, President Trump has proposed eliminating the Department of Education entirely, arguing that education should be left to the states. This move would weaken IDEA enforcement, leaving students with disabilities — especially students of color, who already experience disproportionate suspensions and misclassification in special education — without meaningful protections. Without federal oversight, states could easily erode disability rights protections, leading to widespread inequities.

Attack on Equity in IDEA

The Equity in IDEA rule, introduced in 2016, requires states to address racial and ethnic disparities in special education, particularly in identification, discipline, and placement. The rule required states to monitor for racial disparities and take corrective action where necessary. Under Trump’s first administration, its implementation was delayed and challenged in court, demonstrating a lack of commitment to addressing systemic bias in education.

Now, with the removal of DEIA programs, these disparities will persist unchecked. Schools have historically over-identified BIPOC students for stigmatized disability classifications while simultaneously under-identifying their legitimate needs for services. Without this rule, we risk deepening segregation in education and worsening the school discipline crisis for students of color with disabilities.

Without enforcement of Equity in IDEA, racialized ableism in education will continue to flourish, leaving BIPOC disabled students disproportionately punished and underserved.

Criminalization of Disability in Schools

Disabled students, particularly BIPOC disabled students, are frequently criminalized rather than supported in educational settings. Schools have increasingly relied on law enforcement and punitive discipline instead of providing accommodations, supports, and behavioral interventions.

Disproportionate Punishment and Surveillance

• Suspensions and Expulsions: Disabled students are twice as likely to face suspension or expulsion as their non-disabled peers. BIPOC disabled students experience even higher rates of exclusionary discipline, reinforcing systemic inequities.
• Law Enforcement in Schools: Many schools have embedded school resource officers (SROs) who disproportionately target and arrest disabled students for behaviors related to their disabilities, treating them as threats rather than students in need of support.
• Use of Restraint and Seclusion: Restraint and seclusion are disproportionately used against disabled students, particularly Black disabled students, subjecting them to physical harm, emotional trauma, and long-term academic disengagement.

The National Council on Disability’s (NCD) 2015 report on the School-to-Prison Pipeline exposed the shocking reality that disabled students — especially those of color — are disproportionately pushed out of classrooms and into the juvenile justice system. The report found that up to 85% of incarcerated youth qualify for special education services, yet only 37% actually received them while in school. This is not a coincidence — it is a policy failure.

Instead of intervention, these students were met with discipline, exclusion, and police involvement. This pattern disproportionately impacts students of color with disabilities, reinforcing the cycle of incarceration. By criminalizing behaviors that stem from disabilities rather than offering support, schools push disabled students out of classrooms and into the criminal justice system.

Rather than addressing these inequities, the Trump administration has doubled down on disciplinary crackdowns in schools and cut funding for support services. Executive orders banning so-called “radical indoctrination” are being used to silence discussions of systemic racism and disability rights, preventing schools from addressing the root causes of discipline disparities. These policies don’t “fix” education — they make it more hostile, ensuring that students with disabilities are set up for failure rather than success.

Smackdown on Education

Linda McMahon, former WWE executive and administrator of the Small Business Administration, will be the next Secretary of Education. Her appointment raises significant concerns given her lack of experience in education policy and past controversies and conflicts of interest.

McMahon has been a longtime advocate for privatization and deregulation, aligning with Trump’s agenda to dismantle public education and promote school choice initiatives, which have failed to serve disabled students equitably. Her business background suggests a focus on profit-driven models rather than educational equity, which would weaken federal protections for students with disabilities.

Why McMahon’s Leadership Poses a Threat

1. Inexperience in Education Policy: Unlike past Secretaries of Education with backgrounds in academia, public schooling, or education law, McMahon has no prior experience in shaping or implementing education policy.
2. Support for School Privatization: McMahon has advocated for expanding charter schools and voucher programs, which frequently lack the federal safeguards required to ensure accessibility for students with disabilities.
3. Weakening of Special Education Protections: Given her business-first approach, there are concerns that McMahon will prioritize cost-cutting measures over enforcing IDEA, limiting access to necessary services for students with disabilities.
4. Potential Rollbacks of DEIA Initiatives: McMahon’s appointment could accelerate the elimination of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs, further marginalizing BIPOC disabled students who already face systemic barriers in education.

As Secretary of Education, McMahon is now in a position to oversee policies that erode disability rights, promote exclusionary school choice policies, and reinforce the school-to-prison pipeline. Her tenure will likely weaken the role of the federal government in holding schools accountable, putting thousands of disabled students — especially those from marginalized communities — at risk.

“States Rights” as a Tool for Resisting Civil Rights Protections

The Trump administration’s call to return education policy to the states aligns with a long history of “states’ rights” being used as a tool to resist federal civil rights protections. This agenda, outlined in Project 2025, is not merely about decentralization — it is about removing federal oversight that enforces civil rights laws and enables states to roll back protections for marginalized communities.

The phrase “states’ rights” has historically been used to justify policies that uphold racial and economic hierarchies. From slavery and Jim Crow segregation to opposition to school desegregation and voting rights protections, conservative leaders have repeatedly framed federal intervention as an attack on state autonomy, when in reality, these interventions were necessary to protect marginalized communities from state-level discrimination.

School Desegregation & “Massive Resistance” (1950s-60s)

After Brown v. Board of Education (1954) ruled that racial segregation in schools was unconstitutional, Southern states fought back under the banner of “states’ rights”. They attempted to keep schools segregated by:

• Closing public schools and opening segregation academies (private schools designed to exclude Black students).
• Using state policies to defund integrated schools.
• Deploying the National Guard to block Black students from entering schools, forcing federal intervention (e.g., Little Rock, 1957).

Ronald Reagan’s “States’ Rights” Rhetoric (1980s)

Reagan revived states’ rights language to appeal to white voters in the South while opposing federal civil rights enforcement. His administration worked to roll back federal oversight in education, reduce funding for public schools, and expand privatization.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013) & Voter Suppression

The gutting of the Voting Rights Act was framed as “restoring states’ rights,” but the result was widespread voter suppression targeting Black and Brown communities through voter ID laws, purges, and restricted polling locations.

This historical pattern shows that calls for “states’ rights” often serve as coded language for weakening civil rights protections — and that’s exactly what the Trump administration is on course to do in education. Essentially, this is a modern version of “Massive Resistance,” using states’ rights to dismantle educational protections just as it was used to resist school integration in the 1950s.

When School “Choice” Is Actually Exclusion

Trump’s education agenda heavily promotes voucher programs and charter school expansion, arguing that they provide families with more choices. However, these programs often fail to serve students with disabilities equitably and instead function as a means of privatizing public education while evading federal civil rights protections. Unlike public schools, private and charter schools are not bound by IDEA in the same way. This means that students with disabilities are frequently turned away, denied services, or placed in restrictive settings with fewer resources.

For disabled students, school choice often limits their options rather than expanding them. They are pushed out of traditional public schools due to discriminatory discipline and are often unable to find charter or private schools that will accommodate their needs. Without federal oversight, segregation will deepen, and the educational outcomes for disabled students, particularly those who are BIPOC, will suffer.

How Vouchers & Charter Schools Undermine Disability Rights

• Lack of Accountability: Many voucher-funded private schools and charter schools are not bound by federal civil rights laws in the same way as public schools, meaning they are not required to provide the same education services or supports (see table below).
• Selective Admissions: Private schools can legally refuse to admit or retain disabled students whose needs they deem too expensive or burdensome, effectively shutting out the most marginalized learners.
• Inadequate Resources: Many charter schools do not have adequate special education staff, behavioral supports, or accessible learning environments, making it nearly impossible for students with disabilities to succeed.
• Increased Segregation: These programs exacerbate educational inequities by funneling funding away from public schools and into institutions that often fail to provide equal access, further segregating disabled students into underfunded and less supportive environments.

Instead of fostering real choice, voucher and charter programs often leave disabled students with fewer options and fewer legal protections — especially those from BIPOC communities who already face systemic barriers in education.

Comparison of Disability Protections Across Different School Types

This table compares the legal protections and rights of students with disabilities across four types of schools: Public Schools, Private Schools, Voucher Programs, and Charter Schools. The table includes seven key categories of laws and issues affecting students with disabilities:

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

• Public Schools: Full protections, including Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), and Least Restrictive Environment (LRE).
• Private Schools: Not required to follow IDEA, but public schools must provide limited “equitable services.”
• Voucher Programs: Students typically waive their rights under IDEA, including FAPE and IEPs.
• Charter Schools: Full protections, same as public schools.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

• Public Schools: Full protections, including reasonable accommodations and 504 Plans.
• Private Schools: Applies only if the school receives federal funding.
• Voucher Programs: Applies only if the school receives federal funding.
• Charter Schools: Full protections, same as public schools.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

• Public Schools: Full protections, including accessibility and non-discrimination.
• Private Schools: Applies only to non-religious private schools.
• Voucher Programs: Applies only to non-religious private schools.
• Charter Schools: Full protections, same as public schools.

Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

• Public Schools: Requires accountability and accommodations in standardized testing.
• Private Schools: Does not apply.
• Voucher Programs: Does not apply.
• Charter Schools: Requires accountability and accommodations in standardized testing.

Impact on Student Rights

• Public Schools: Full legal protections.
• Private Schools: Limited rights, varies based on funding and religious affiliation.
• Voucher Programs: Often lose IDEA rights, and accommodations depend on individual school policies.
• Charter Schools: Same protections as public schools.

Instances of Unequal Access

• Public Schools: Have been sued for failing to provide FAPE (e.g., inadequate IEPs, restraint, and seclusion issues).
• Private Schools: Reports indicate some private schools in voucher programs discriminate against students with disabilities or lack necessary supports.
• Voucher Programs: Voucher-funded students often lose IDEA protections, and schools may exclude students needing high-cost services.
• Charter Schools: Have been criticized for discouraging enrollment of students with disabilities and using exclusionary discipline policies.

Impact if the Department of Education Were Dismantled

• Public Schools: IDEA enforcement could weaken, making it harder for families to hold schools accountable; funding for special education could be cut at the state level.
• Private Schools: Federal 504 protections could disappear unless another agency enforces them; schools receiving federal funds may lose oversight.
• Voucher Programs: Fewer regulations could lead to even less accountability for ensuring students with disabilities receive services, widening disparities.
• Charter Schools: Less federal oversight and state-by-state variation in enforcement could increase discrimination and unequal access for students with disabilities.

This table can also be found in the CRDJ’s First 100 Days Threats to Racial and Disability Justice: A Guide.

What Needs to Happen Now

To combat these regressive policies, we must:

1. Defend and strengthen IDEA, Section 504, and ADA: Advocates must push back against efforts to undermine federal disability protections and demand robust enforcement.
2. Expose the impact of these policies: Education and disability rights organizations must track and report on the increasing disparities in discipline, school placement, and access to services.
3. Expand disability justice advocacy in racial justice movements: The fight for racial equity must explicitly include disability rights, particularly for students caught in the School-to-Prison Pipeline.
4. Litigate and challenge discriminatory practices: Civil rights attorneys and disability advocates must continue filing lawsuits against school districts and policymakers that violate IDEA, Section 504, and Title VI.
5. Promote inclusive educational practices: Schools must implement trauma-informed teaching strategies, restorative justice programs, and anti-racist special education reforms to disrupt systemic discrimination.

A Call to Action

The Trump administration’s education policies represent an existential threat to the rights of disabled students, especially those who are BIPOC. If these policies stand, disparities will widen, more students will be pushed out of classrooms, and the school-to-prison pipeline will entrench itself even further into the fabric of our society. Now is the time for parents, educators, disability rights activists, and racial justice advocates to fight back, organize, and demand that education remains a tool for equity rather than exclusion.

The stakes couldn’t be higher. The future of disability justice in education depends on it.

The Northwestern Pritzker Law Center for Racial and Disability Justice (CRDJ) is a first-of-its-kind center dedicated to promoting justice for people of color, people with disabilities, and individuals at the intersection of race and disability.

Learn more about CRDJ by visiting the Center for Racial and Disability Justice webpage.