HB2456, titled the “Orderly Liquidation of the Department of Education Act,” would terminate the U.S. Department of Education on October 1, 2026 and replace it with a smaller Office of Education housed in the Department of Health and Human Services. The bill directs the President to develop and implement a liquidation plan within 180 days of enactment, including the transfer of specified programs, assets, records, and obligations to other federal agencies. It also provides transition rules so existing orders, grants, loans, contracts, and pending proceedings continue during the wind-down.
The bill reallocates a wide range of education-related functions to other agencies. Many K-12, higher education, special education, homeless student, and community program functions would move to HHS; certain higher education and historically Black university-related functions would move to the National Science Foundation; some tribal and career-technical education functions would move to the Department of the Interior; federal student loan functions, including Direct PLUS Loans, would move to the Treasury Department; certain school-related functions would move to the Department of Defense; rehabilitation and career-technical functions would move to the Department of Labor; and the Office for Civil Rights would move to the Department of Justice. The bill also ends new Federal Direct PLUS Loans for periods of instruction beginning on or after October 1, 2026, and phases out certain Title I education funds after October 1, 2036.
In terms of state-law impact, the bill is designed to shift education authority away from the federal Department of Education and back toward states and local communities, while preserving some federal program administration through other agencies. It would not eliminate all federal education spending immediately, but it would substantially change which agencies administer federal education programs and how those programs are overseen. The bill also allows recipients of transferred grants or funds to decline them, which could affect participation by states, school districts, colleges, and other entities.
Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials beyond the bill text itself. The bill’s findings and structure indicate a strongly deregulatory, decentralizing intent, and the overall framing is critical of the Department of Education’s effectiveness and influence. The absence of recorded votes or hearing testimony means there is no available evidence here of bipartisan support or formal opposition, but the proposal itself is likely to be controversial because it would dismantle a major cabinet department and redistribute its responsibilities across multiple agencies.
The main points of contention are likely to be the elimination of the Department of Education, the transfer of civil rights enforcement to DOJ, the movement of student aid and loan functions to Treasury, and the scheduled end of certain federal funding streams. Supporters would likely emphasize state control, reduced federal regulation, and administrative simplification, while opponents would likely argue that the bill weakens federal oversight, creates transition risks, and could disrupt services for students, borrowers, and vulnerable populations such as students with disabilities, homeless youth, and tribal communities.
The bill would repeal the Department of Education’s federal role as of October 1, 2026, and amend multiple statutes to transfer education-related authorities to HHS, NSF, Interior, Treasury, Defense, Labor, and DOJ. It would also phase out certain Title I funds after 2036 and end new Federal Direct PLUS Loans for new periods of instruction beginning October 1, 2026, materially changing the administration of federal education law, student aid, civil rights enforcement, and several K-12 and higher education programs.
The bill’s text reflects a strongly anti-centralization, pro-state-control position and a clear preference for reducing federal involvement in education. No committee transcript or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or formal vote sentiment to summarize. Based on the bill structure alone, the proposal appears ideologically driven and likely to draw sharp support from advocates of federal downsizing and strong opposition from defenders of the current federal education role.
The most notable contention points are the outright termination of the Department of Education, the redistribution of its programs to other agencies, and the transfer of civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice. Likely critics include education advocates, civil rights groups, higher education institutions, and stakeholders in special education, student aid, and homeless/tribal education programs, who may argue the bill fragments oversight and weakens protections. Supporters are likely to be proponents of school choice, state control, and federal deregulation, who would argue that education should be managed locally rather than by a federal cabinet department.