A US Senate spending panel welcomes education programs that Trump has planned to cut

WASHINGTON – U.S. senators across the aisle on Tuesday rejected President Donald Trump’s proposal to eliminate funding for programs that serve disadvantaged students.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended these and other cuts proposed by her agency mentioned in Trump’s letter Budget proposal for 2027which calls for the creation of a fresh discretionary budget authority for the department of $75.7 billion, which would represent a reduction of $3.2 billion, or 4.1%, from fiscal year 2026 levels.

The administration has taken major steps to disband the 46-year-old Department of Education as part of the president’s push to send education “back to the states.” These efforts continue despite much of school funding and oversight already occurring at the state and local levels.

“We have been clear: shifting power back to the states will not come at the expense of central federal programs (and) supports, most of which were created by the department itself,” McMahon told lawmakers at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies.

The panel shares jurisdiction over Department of Education spending with the appropriate subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. The president’s budget request is generally considered the starting point for negotiations, but Congress is responsible for deciding federal spending.

Cross-party support for TRIO

Republican and Democratic senators particularly focused on the administration’s proposal to eliminate federal TRIO programs in fiscal year 2027.

Federal TRIO programs — $1.19 billion this fiscal year — support support groups, including low-income students, first-generation college students, people with disabilities and veterans.

Sen. Susan Collins, chairwoman of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, said she opposes the president’s proposal to eliminate TRIO, noting that these programs have “changed the lives of countless first-generation and low-income college students in Maine and across the country.”

The Maine Republican added that TRIO “enjoys solid support and has made such a difference in children’s lives.”

Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman also emphasized his support for TRIO, noting that in his state, the programs have been “a game changer in helping low-income and first-generation college students not only gain access to higher education, but also succeed once they achieve it.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley was the first in his family to go to college and said he came from a “very blue-collar, frontier, homesteading background.”

The Oregon Democrat said that from this perspective, he believes that “having conscious programs to help people bridge the cultural divide that exists between blue-collar workers like me and the college world, which you have very little exposure to, is extremely valuable in America, and the statistics from these programs are pretty darn impressive.”

The secretary told the panel that while “there are many cases where the TRIO program has been very beneficial… as we look around the country at how to spend these dollars and how to get similar results, perhaps not necessarily focusing students on earning their degrees, perhaps there is another path for them to be successful.”

McMahon said her agency is in the process of spending “approximately $2.1 million” to study and evaluate TRIO programs.

In his summary Trump’s fiscal 2027 budget proposalthe department found that TRIO “failed to meet the vast majority of its performance measures, and studies of the program’s effectiveness found that it did not increase college admissions.”

Democrats condemn plan to eliminate agency

Meanwhile, McMahon sharply criticized top Democrats on the subcommittee and the broader Senate Appropriations panel over the administration’s continued efforts to dismantle the agency.

Some of these efforts include several interagency agreements between the Ministry of Education and the Ministries of Labour, Health and Welfare, Home Affairs, State and Treasury, which delegate many education-related responsibilities to these agencies.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, the subcommittee’s ranking member, said education is “moving the vast majority of its programs to other federal departments, agencies with little experience, expertise or management capacity.”

The Wisconsin Democrat said that instead of “cutting red tape” – which is the administration’s main goal across the federal government and especially across the department – the transfers create “another layer of it.”

She added that “where states previously dealt primarily with the Department of Education, they will now have to work with multiple federal agencies.”

Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the full Appropriations Committee, pressed McMahon on the status of the administration considering moving special education services out of the Department of Education as part of the decommissioning effort.

The possibility of transferring programs from the department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services has generated interest widespread concern from disability advocates.

McMahon said her department is “still evaluating where best to locate these programs, but we haven’t made that decision yet.”

“I can assure you that it is not the intention of this administration to place these students at risk in any way,” McMahon said.

Murray, however, was not satisfied with the secretary’s response, saying she was “deeply concerned that your response sounds as if you continue to move forward – let’s be clear that it will break the law and make it much more difficult for students with disabilities to get an education and understand that their country will support them in doing so.”