Sovereign States Education Restoration Act
HB3345, the “Sovereign States Education Restoration Act,” would abolish the U.S. Department of Education 270 days after enactment. With limited exceptions, the bill repeals programs for which the Department of Education or the Secretary has administrative responsibility, and it transfers selected functions to other federal agencies. Special education functions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would move to the Department of Health and Human Services; Indian education programs would move to the Department of the Interior; and several higher-education and student-loan programs, including Pell Grants, federal student loans, Perkins Loans, and certain health education loan programs, would move to the Department of the Treasury. It also transfers education research and technical assistance functions to Treasury.
The bill replaces federal education administration with a block grant model. Treasury would distribute funds to states for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education based largely on student enrollment, and states could use the money for a broad range of early childhood, K-12, career and technical, and higher education purposes. States receiving funds would have to submit student data, undergo annual audits, and comply with federal civil rights laws. Treasury would also have authority to recover misused funds or withhold future allocations.
The bill would significantly alter federal education law by dismantling the Department of Education’s role and redistributing statutory responsibilities across multiple agencies. It would also preserve enforcement of key civil rights protections, including Section 504, Title IX, and Title VI, by assigning complaint handling and enforcement to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. The bill authorizes appropriations equal to the Department of Education’s fiscal year 2019 funding level, with caps on the share used for state grants and administration.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available record is limited because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes. Based on the bill’s text and title, it appears to be a strongly deregulatory, decentralizing proposal aimed at shifting education authority from the federal government to states. The main likely point of contention is the elimination of the Department of Education itself and the transfer of major federal education programs to other agencies, which would be viewed by supporters as reducing federal control but by opponents as disrupting administration, oversight, and continuity of services for students and borrowers.
If enacted, HB3345 would repeal or displace large portions of federal education administration law, including the Department of Education Organization Act and the General Education Provisions Act as they relate to programs under the Department’s control. It would move major statutory responsibilities to Treasury, HHS, Interior, and DOJ, while converting federal education support into state block grants. Affected parties would include K-12 schools, higher education institutions, student loan borrowers, students with disabilities, tribal education programs, state education agencies, and civil rights enforcement entities.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so no formal legislative sentiment can be measured from the record. The bill’s framing and structure indicate support for a limited federal role in education and greater state control, suggesting a partisan or ideological alignment with decentralization and abolition of the Education Department. Because the bill is introduced but not advanced in the provided history, the available record does not show bipartisan consensus or negotiated compromise.
The central point of contention is the proposed abolition of the Department of Education and the redistribution of its programs to other agencies, especially the transfer of student aid and loan programs to Treasury and special education functions to HHS. Another likely dispute is the block grant structure, which gives states broad discretion but may raise concerns about accountability, consistency, and funding equity. Civil rights enforcement is also a potential issue: the bill preserves Title IX, Title VI, and Section 504 protections, but shifts enforcement to DOJ, which may prompt questions about capacity and implementation. Supporters are likely to favor state flexibility and reduced federal bureaucracy, while opponents are likely to object to dismantling federal oversight and altering established education and loan systems.