Sen. Murkowski chafes at Trump’s reorganization of the Department of Education

Sen. Lisa Murkowski is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s efforts to peel off major functions of the US Department of Education and move them into other federal agencies, a step the administration says is necessary to streamline the size and reach of a bureaucracy that has ballooned without delivering results.

In a statement released Friday, Murkowski said Congress intentionally created the Department of Education to provide a “coordinated, comprehensive approach” to national education policy and to “centralize subject-matter experts” who support states, schools, and parents.

But the defense of “centralization” from Alaska’s senior senator, at a time when the federal education apparatus is widely viewed as bloated, ineffective, and light-years removed from actual classroom needs, and her statement lands awkwardly among those who say the department has become little more than a pass-through operation that skims funding before sending dollars back to the states with strings attached.

Trump’s reorganization effort, announced earlier this week, would relocate several programs,  including career and technical education components, certain student aid functions, and federal administrative support programs, to other agencies with overlapping missions. The move effectively begins dismantling the department without requiring full congressional approval, something conservative lawmakers have unsuccessfully pursued for decades.

Murkowski warned that shifting programs out of the department could “have lasting negative impacts on our young people,” arguing that other federal agencies “lack the necessary policy expertise” to oversee education-related responsibilities. She insisted that decentralizing the department’s functions would not restore true local control — despite the fact that most K–12 decisions are already made by states and school districts.

The department has actively worked against local control for years, imposing regulatory burdens, political agendas, and compliance mandates that divert billions of dollars away from students and toward federal administrators, consultants, and contractors.

Murkowski’s suggestion that Washington-based experts are indispensable to student success underscores exactly why the department has struggled to maintain public credibility.

Murkowski also accused the administration of attempting to “circumvent the law” by moving programs into other agencies rather than eliminating them outright, a nod to the political reality that Congress does not have the votes to abolish the department, even as dissatisfaction with its performance has grown across the political spectrum.

For Alaska, the debate has particular resonance. The state relies on federal dollars for rural school operations but has long chafed under federal directives that do little to reflect the needs of isolated communities or the state’s unique geography. Many conservative leaders welcome efforts to streamline or reduce federal intrusion, especially as student performance nationwide continues to decline despite record-level federal spending.

Trump’s restructuring initiative is expected to proceed in phases over the coming months, with additional program transfers likely. Murkowski’s resistance signals an early split within the congressional delegation, setting up a debate over whether the problem in education is too much federal “centralization” or far too little accountability for a department that has grown steadily while producing steadily worse outcomes.