Ignoring the Elephant in the Classroom: How Trump’s Agenda47 and Project 2025 Threaten English Learners with Disabilities
The recent EdWeek article, “English Learners With Disabilities: The Rules Schools Have to Follow,” provides a detailed overview of current federal guidelines intended to safeguard the educational rights of students who are both English learners and have disabilities. Whilst its discussion of these legal requirements is thorough, the article exists in a vacuum, seemingly unaware of the rapidly shifting political landscape that threatens to dismantle the very frameworks it outlines. Notably, it omits any mention of the incoming Trump administration’s Agenda47, which includes a proposal to eliminate the Department of Education (DOE) entirely. This absence is particularly striking given that the DOE, through its Office for Civil Rights (OCR), serves as the primary enforcer of the protections the article discusses. Without the DOE, the responsibilities for oversight, funding, and enforcement of equity measures for dual-identified students would fall to states, creating a patchwork of inconsistent support where vulnerable students are likely to be overlooked.
Today’s article seeks to bridge the gap between the EdWeek piece’s technical focus and the stark reality of potential structural dismantlement. It explores not only the immediate educational consequences but also the potential legal battles that could arise from blue states like California, which have historically championed robust protections for students with disabilities and English learners. At stake is the future of millions of students, particularly those whose identities and needs intersect in ways that demand specialised support. By ignoring the broader political context, the EdWeek article inadvertently minimises the cascading consequences of eliminating federal oversight, from delayed services to outright neglect. Today’s piece aims to confront these omissions and examine what the impending policy shifts mean for English learners with disabilities, a population that already faces significant systemic barriers.
Agenda47 and Project 2025: The Blueprint for Education’s Dismantlement
Orange Man’s Agenda47 and its foundational blueprint, Project 2025, represent a sweeping attempt to dismantle federal oversight of education and reframe it as a state-controlled, privatised enterprise. Central to Agenda47 is the elimination of the DOE, ostensibly to return power to the states. In reality, this is a neoliberal strategy to divert public funds into private hands under the guise of “school choice.” By promoting policies such as voucher programs and expanded access to private and charter schools, the plan seeks to redirect taxpayer money away from public education, allowing corporations to profit whilst leaving underfunded public schools to wither. As I’ve covered previously, such moves effectively loot the public purse, enriching private entities at the expense of equitable access to education.
Framed as an effort to champion “patriotism” and “parental rights,” Agenda47 also pushes for the dismantling of diversity and inclusion initiatives, which it deems antithetical to its so-called “American Way of Life.” This rhetoric masks a regressive cultural agenda that aims to erase critical conversations about race, gender, and identity from classrooms, reinforcing systemic inequities. By positioning education as a battleground for ideological purity, the agenda weaponises “parental rights” to police curriculum and restrict access to books, discussions, and resources that promote critical thinking and cultural understanding. It is, at its core, a neocolonialist project—an effort to homogenise education in the image of an exclusionary and nostalgic vision of America.
Project 2025, the framework underpinning Agenda47, lays bare the broader conservative goal: to re-engineer federal agencies to prioritise private equity and austerity over public service. In the context of education, this means decentralisation that strips federal oversight and accountability, with a particular focus on dismantling civil rights protections. Under this vision, agencies like the OCR, which currently ensure compliance with laws protecting English learners and students with disabilities, would be rendered toothless or abolished entirely. The plan emphasises austerity, reducing federal spending not as a means of balancing budgets but as a way of eliminating public services that interfere with profit-driven models.
The implications of this strategy are profound. By removing the DOE, Project 2025 would abandon the most vulnerable students—those who rely on federally mandated protections such as equitable access to specialised services for disabilities and language acquisition. Under state control, the provision of these services would become fragmented and uneven, further marginalising students already at the intersection of multiple systemic barriers. Meanwhile, the prioritisation of private interests over public good reflects a colonial mindset, one that sees education not as a right but as a commodity. By framing public education as a failed enterprise in need of corporate rescue, Agenda47 and Project 2025 perpetuate cycles of inequity whilst enriching those who least need it. This is not just a political shift; it is a fundamental reshaping of education’s purpose and accessibility, driven by profit and ideology rather than the needs of students and families.
Implications of Eliminating the DOE and the OCR
Eliminating the DOE as proposed under Trump’s Agenda47 would create a cascade of devastating consequences for vulnerable students, especially those who rely on federal oversight to ensure equitable access to education. Among the most significant impacts would be the loss of Title I funding, which currently supports high-poverty schools like mine. Whilst proponents of eliminating the DOE often advocate for “block grants” to states as a replacement, the history of such funding mechanisms reveals how easily they devolve into nightmares of inequity. Block grants lack federal oversight, leaving states to determine how to allocate funds—a process often marred by political priorities rather than the actual needs of students (think Jackson, Mississippi’s problems with it’s state). The most vulnerable, including English learners with disabilities, would inevitably bear the brunt of these inequities as resources are diverted to wealthier, more politically influential communities.
Further compounding the harm would be the gutting of federal programs that serve students with disabilities. The IDEA, a cornerstone of educational equity, mandates services and accommodations for students with disabilities. However, these protections come at a cost, and charter schools—poised to benefit most from Agenda47’s push toward privatisation—are notorious for refusing or discouraging enrolment of students with IEPs. Without the DOE to enforce IDEA, these students are likely to be excluded or underserved in the name of preserving charter profitability. This reflects an underlying agenda that sees disabled students not as children with rights but as financial liabilities standing in the way of corporate efficiency.
Accountability for equity would also shift entirely to states, which vary widely in their capacity and willingness to address these issues. States with a track record of underfunding public education or disregarding civil rights protections would likely exacerbate existing inequities. Federal oversight has long been a necessary counterbalance to ensure that all students—regardless of their state of residence—have access to a free, appropriate public education. Without this oversight, the education system would become even more fractured, leaving dual-identified students—those who are English learners and have disabilities—at the mercy of geography.
The implications of dismantling the DOE are further compounded by the loss of the OCR, which plays a critical role in protecting dual-identified students. The OCR enforces compliance with federal laws that guarantee timely evaluations, prevent forced choices between services, and ensure non-discriminatory practices. The EdWeek article rightly highlights these protections but fails to consider how their enforcement relies entirely on the OCR’s authority. Without this oversight, schools would face little to no consequence for ignoring or delaying services. This lack of accountability would disproportionately harm students at the intersection of disability and language acquisition, as these students often require the most advocacy to ensure their needs are met.
The situation is made even murkier by legislation such as Senate Bill 5384, which proposes shifting IEP oversight to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Whilst the bill’s proponents claim this would streamline services, there is a glaring lack of clarity about how such a monumental shift would be implemented. HHS, a department already stretched thin managing health-related programs, would need significant funding and personnel increases to take on this entirely new responsibility. The absence of such provisions in the legislation suggests an alarming level of short-sightedness. Moreover, federal bureaucracies are not known for rapid adaptation; transitioning IEP oversight could take years, leaving students in limbo during the process.
Even more concerning is the question of how HHS would handle oversight for language learners. With the DOE dismantled, there would be no clear mechanism to address the unique needs of English learners with disabilities. These students require a nuanced approach that considers both their linguistic and developmental needs—something HHS, which has no history of managing language acquisition programs, is ill-equipped to provide. This lack of coordination would further marginalise dual-identified students, leaving their education subject to the whims of austerity-driven policy and bureaucratic confusion.
As such, the elimination of the DOE and OCR would unravel the safeguards that currently protect vulnerable students, replacing them with a fragmented and underfunded system. The rhetoric of decentralisation and efficiency masks a deeply harmful agenda, one that prioritises corporate interests and austerity over the educational rights of millions. Dual-identified students, already at the margins, would be pushed even further into the shadows of an unaccountable system.
Oversight for Language Learners in Trump’s Austerity Plan
Under Orange Man’s austerity-driven Agenda47, English learners face a grim future as federal guidance and accountability for language acquisition programs are poised to vanish. Programs such as Title III, which provide critical support for English language development, would likely be gutted or entirely eradicated along with the Department of Education. This would leave states to navigate language education independently, an arrangement that history shows is fraught with inconsistency and inequity. One need look no further than the fraught relationship between Jackson, Mississippi, and its state legislature and executive branch. Even within states, urban centres and marginalised communities often find themselves at odds with state-level leadership, leaving local education systems underfunded and underserved. For English learners, the absence of federal oversight would mean a patchwork of policies with little assurance of quality or equity.
Language itself risks becoming an afterthought under this model of austerity. The incoming administration’s vision prioritises cost-cutting and ideological conformity over the needs of students at the intersection of linguistic, cultural, and developmental diversity. English learners who also have disabilities, for example, rely on carefully coordinated programs that address their dual needs. Without a federal framework to ensure these students are neither siloed nor neglected, the likelihood of rollback for bilingual education and multilingual initiatives grows. These programs are often portrayed as luxuries in austerity discourse, despite overwhelming evidence of their importance to academic success and cultural preservation. The loss of such programs would disproportionately harm immigrant and Indigenous communities, where maintaining linguistic heritage is vital to identity and resilience.
The policies driving Agenda47 reflect a broader colonialist mindset, one that prioritises assimilation over cultural preservation and equity. By dismantling federal programs that support language acquisition and cultural diversity, the Trump administration effectively seeks to erase the identities of English learners. Assimilationist policies have long been a tool of colonialism, deployed to undermine Indigenous languages and cultures whilst forcing marginalised communities into a homogenised national narrative. This latest iteration of erasure is no different. It frames linguistic diversity as a barrier to patriotism rather than a strength to be celebrated, and it positions bilingualism and multilingualism as expendable in the pursuit of ideological purity.
The risks are particularly acute for Indigenous language learners and immigrant populations. Indigenous languages, already endangered due to centuries of colonial policies, would face further marginalisation without federal support for revitalisation programs. Similarly, immigrant families who depend on bilingual education to navigate their new cultural landscape would find themselves increasingly alienated from systems that are meant to serve them. The cultural impact of such policies cannot be overstated. When language is lost, so too are the histories, traditions, and identities it carries. The Trump administration’s approach to education, stripped of its euphemisms, is not merely a restructuring—it is a deliberate act of cultural erasure that sacrifices equity on the altar of austerity and assimilation.
In this context, the absence of oversight for language learners becomes more than an administrative failure; it is a betrayal of the very principles that education is meant to uphold. Language is not merely a skill to be developed but a vehicle for understanding and connection. By treating it as a burden to be minimised, Agenda47 reduces English learners to economic and ideological pawns in a system designed to exclude rather than uplift. The consequences will reverberate across generations, leaving a legacy of diminished opportunities and stolen cultural heritage.
The Colonial Mindset of Language Erasure
Trump’s education agenda is steeped in a colonial mindset that prioritises cultural erasure and assimilation over diversity and equity. Historically, colonial regimes used education as a tool to suppress Indigenous and minority cultures, viewing linguistic and cultural diversity as obstacles to their broader goals of domination. Trump’s plans echo these policies, stripping away federal oversight and funding for programs that preserve and celebrate linguistic diversity. From his previous term to the language in Agenda47, and the rhetoric of his supporters and donors, the trajectory of this modern-day nativism is clear: a push to homogenise American culture under the guise of patriotism, with no regard for the rich tapestry of identities that define the nation.
Erasure of linguistic diversity has always been a deliberate tool of oppression. By attacking bilingual education and dismissing multiculturalism as un-American, Trump’s proposals follow a well-trodden path of marginalisation. For centuries, Indigenous languages in North America were suppressed through government policies, from boarding schools that forbade Native children from speaking their languages to systemic underfunding of revitalisation efforts. Today’s iteration is no less insidious, couched in the rhetoric of “parental rights” and “school choice” to disguise the underlying goal of cultural conformity. This approach not only disregards the needs of students but also perpetuates cycles of erasure, as languages lost to these policies often cannot be recovered.
In its modern form, Trump’s agenda uses “patriotism” and the “American Way of Life” as euphemisms to enforce monolingualism and cultural conformity. These concepts, largely fabricated by the marketing industry under figures like Edward Bernays, are designed to cultivate a superficial nationalism that rejects diversity. The rhetoric positions English as the sole acceptable language of success and belonging, relegating other languages and cultural identities to the margins. Diversity initiatives are framed as divisive or even dangerous, with ethnic and gender studies singled out for attack. These measures are not merely about curriculum control; they represent a broader effort to rewrite history and consolidate power by ensuring that “the victor” controls the narrative. In this context, education becomes a battleground, not for ideas, but for the erasure of identities deemed inconvenient to the dominant narrative.
The consequences for Indigenous and immigrant students are particularly severe. For Indigenous communities, language is inextricably linked to cultural heritage and identity. Marginalising Indigenous languages undercuts efforts to preserve traditions and histories that have already survived centuries of systemic oppression. These policies also affect immigrant families, whose linguistic diversity is often treated as a problem rather than an asset. It is not only Spanish-speaking communities who will feel the impact; families from South Asia, Africa, and other regions, with their rich linguistic traditions, will also face increased barriers. Without federally supported programs to promote linguistic and cultural heritage, these students are left without the resources they need to succeed academically or maintain their cultural ties.
The attack on diversity within education is, at its core, a continuation of colonial oppression. It devalues the experiences and identities of millions of students, treating cultural and linguistic heritage as expendable in the pursuit of a fictional, homogenised version of patriotism. The loss is immeasurable—not just for the students directly affected, but for the country as a whole, which stands to lose the richness and innovation that comes from embracing diversity. Trump’s agenda, in dismantling these protections, does not just erase languages; it erases the stories, histories, and futures that those languages carry. This is more than a policy choice; it is an act of cultural violence, with consequences that will resonate for generations.
Final thoughts …
The EdWeek article, whilst comprehensive in its discussion of current legal protections for English learners with disabilities, fails to acknowledge the existential threat posed by Trump’s Agenda47 and its underpinning in Project 2025. By focusing solely on the technicalities of existing laws, the piece overlooks the reality that these protections could be rendered meaningless under a political agenda designed to dismantle the DOE. This is not a mere restructuring; it is a deliberate abandonment of federal responsibility for ensuring equity in education. Dual-identified students, already at the margins of the system, would face an even steeper uphill battle as their rights and resources are stripped away in the name of austerity and profit.
Recognising this threat demands vigilance. Educators, families, and policymakers must confront the colonial and austerity-driven underpinnings of these policies and advocate fiercely for the most vulnerable students. The push to eliminate federal oversight, under the guise of decentralisation and “local control,” is not about empowering communities but about eroding protections for those who need them most. Resistance requires not only opposing these regressive policies but also envisioning and fighting for an education system that values diversity and inclusion as fundamental strengths.
The question, ultimately, is not just what happens to oversight mechanisms. It is whether we are willing to allow the most vulnerable students—those who rely on the intersection of educational and civil rights protections—to be left behind in a system that views their needs as expendable. The stakes could not be higher, and the time to act is now.