On March 11, 2025, the Department of Education announced its plans to reduce 50 percent of its workforce through deferred resignation, voluntary separation, early retirement, and RIFs. Multiple states and public schools filed lawsuits against the federal government and were initially provided with an emergency motion to stop the department from carrying out potentially unlawful layoffs. On July 14, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the district court decision through a shadow docket process and allowed the federal government to continue its layoffs as the case progresses through the courts.
The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), which provides enforcement of civil rights protections, fielded a historic 22,687 cases, with 37 percent—8,457—relating to disability, which was second only to sex discrimination. The Trump administration attempted to lay off more than 250 OCR employees in March 2025. In April, Victim Rights Law Center, a nonprofit organization, filed a lawsuit against the department and was able to get a preliminary injunction to force the department to bring staff back. In August, the administration utilized the previously mentioned Supreme Court shadow docket decision made in July to obtain a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to finalize the OCR layoffs in October. With approximately 120 employees left, if cases remained consistent with last year, the office would have to manage almost 190 cases per employee. Larger caseloads could force slowdowns in cases that already can last for years.
President Trump stated that the federal government shutdown provided him an “unprecedented opportunity” to continue to gut departments, including the Department of Education. On October 10, 2025, 415 department employees were laid off, with 121 employees from the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). Less than half a dozen employees remain within the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), housed within OSERS. OSEP conducts monitoring of states and territories adherence to IDEA, administers technical assistance to millions of families, and monitors the rights of 7.5 million students with disabilities. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), also housed in OSERS, lost almost every employee. The RSA provides formula grants, technical assistance, and monitoring for state-run vocational rehabilitation services. Between fiscal years (FYs) 2023 and 2024, the RSA coordinated funding for more than 870,000 clients nationally. Funds went to provide transition services, postsecondary training, vocational assessments, and other employment services.
Gutting services and protections
Employment rates and wages increase when disabled people obtain an education. While IDEA provides the backbone of the special education system, only 20 states and territories meet Part B requirements (supporting services for ages 3 through 21) and 31 states and territories meet Part C requirements (supporting services for infants and toddlers). The Department of Education’s budget cuts and policy changes—along with fluctuating staffing levels—make it even more difficult for states to comply with IDEA.
Budget cuts
The Trump administration proposed a 16 percent budget cut for the Department of Education for FY 2026. While the administration’s proposal maintained special education funding at the same level as FY 2025, the department’s budget cuts will affect other services that support disabled students, including eliminating funding for client assistance, training, supported employment, and protection and advocacy. The administration also proposed combining and block granting IDEA funding with numerous other grants and reducing accountability measures. These changes add to funding cuts to IDEA services already made by the Big Beautiful Bill.
Policy changes
The Department of Education has introduced numerous new policy changes, including starting the regulatory process for removing requirements around collecting standardized data from the “determining significant disproportionality” final rule. Before the rule, the Government Accountability Office found some states utilizing differing definitions of significant disproportionality to skirt requirements to set aside a maximum of 15 percent of IDEA Part B funding for early intervention services if they were found to be at fault for significant disproportionality. This resulted in states not funding early intervention services even after districts identified for special education certain racial and ethnic minority groups at 2–3 times the rate of other groups.
For months, the Trump administration has proposed moving special education services from the Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, the move would require congressional authorization because OSEP was established within the Department of Education by federal law. Even if the administration decided to illegally circumvent Congress, moving OSEP to HHS would fragment special education services from general education and reduce OSEP’s ability to protect disabled students’ rights to a free appropriate public education. With its focus on “health and well-being” and recent workforce reductions, HHS will likely not have the experience to move away from prioritizing the medical model of managing and curing “impairments.” Advocates fear this move could lead to pre-IDEA conditions that result in increased discrimination against and segregation of disabled students.
Conclusion
Layoffs, budget cuts, and policy changes are all a part of the Trump administration’s direct attacks on disabled students and children and will cause long-term negative impacts. The outcomes for disabled people could become dire. Poorer education outcomes cause poorer employment outcomes, and the resulting economic instability will likely push disabled people out of communities and into nursing homes, the streets, or prisons.
The authors would like to thank Will Roberts, Peter Gordon, Weadé James, and Casey Peeks for their reviews; Chandler Hall for fact-checking; and CAP’s Editorial and Legal teams for their guidance.