Summary#
This bill would stop the Department of Education from moving certain offices’ work to other federal agencies or from making new agreements that let other agencies do that work. The main change is a broad ban on interagency agreements, contracts, and transfers related to four Education offices. The stated goal is to keep those programs and functions inside the Department of Education.
- Main change: The Secretary of Education must not enter new agreements with other federal agencies, or otherwise outsource or share functions, for the offices listed below.
- Offices covered: Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services; Office of Postsecondary Education; Office of Indian Education; Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
- What the ban covers: contracts, procurements, transfers of activities or appropriations, use of another agency’s research, equipment, or facilities, joint projects, and similar arrangements related to program administration, grant awards, technical assistance, enforcement, data collection/sharing, oversight, or grantee monitoring.
- Internal move blocked: The Secretary may not move a program out of one of these offices to another Education office and then make an interagency deal about it.
- Exception: Any interagency arrangement that was already in effect on February 1, 2025 may remain. Renewals are allowed only if the renewal is the same, or substantially similar, to the original terms.
- Overrides certain existing transfer authorities: The ban applies even if other federal laws or authorities would normally allow such transfers or agreements.
What it means for you#
- Department of Education staff: The four offices named must keep control of their covered programs and functions. The Department cannot contract those functions out to other federal agencies after the bill takes effect (subject to the February 1, 2025 exception).
- Other federal agencies: Agencies that currently perform work for those Education offices would not be able to enter new arrangements to perform that work after the bill starts. Existing arrangements in place on February 1, 2025 can continue or be renewed on substantially similar terms.
- State and local education agencies, schools, colleges, and grantees: This could change which federal office you deal with for grants, compliance, technical help, or data reporting. If Education ends interagency partnerships, you may deal more directly with the named Education offices.
- Contractors and service providers: Firms that provide services through an interagency arrangement with Education could lose new contracting opportunities after the ban takes effect, unless their work was covered by an agreement in place on February 1, 2025.
- If you use services that relied on interagency cooperation: Services that depended on another agency doing parts of an Education program (for example, shared data systems or technical assistance) could be altered if those interagency links end.
Expenses#
No publicly available information.
- The bill text does not include a fiscal note or an estimate of costs or savings.
- This could mean additional administrative costs for the Department of Education if it must perform tasks previously done by other agencies, or it could change contract or staffing needs — but the bill text does not quantify those effects.
- It is not stated whether there would be costs from ending existing interagency arrangements that are not covered by the February 1, 2025 exception.
Proponents' View#
- The bill appears intended to keep key education program administration and oversight inside the Department of Education.
- A possible argument for the bill is that it preserves specialized expertise and direct accountability in the named offices by preventing transfers or outsourcing of their functions.
- Supporters may see this as protecting consistent program management and preventing other agencies from making decisions about education programs.
Opponents' View#
- One concern is that the bill reduces flexibility for the Department and other agencies to share work, which could make some programs less efficient.
- The bill does not explain how Education will replace services that other agencies currently provide, so this may raise questions about administrative costs or staffing needs.
- It is unclear how broadly “functions related to” will be interpreted, which could create legal disputes or uncertainty about routine collaborations.
- The rule allowing renewals only if terms are “the same, or substantially similar” is vague and may cause disputes over whether a renewal is allowed.