Supreme Court Permits Trump Administration to Carry Out Reduction in Force at ED
By Maria Carrasco, NASFAA Staff Reporter
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Monday issued an order enabling the Trump administration to implement its reduction in force (RIF) plans at the Department of Education (ED), while an ongoing legal challenge continues. This order from SCOTUS lifts an earlier injunction ordered by a lower court, which initially blocked the administration from firing thousands of ED employees.
Earlier in May, U.S. District Judge Myong Joun blocked the department’s RIF through an injunction, ordering the administration to reinstate federal employees who were terminated on or after January 20, 2025, which was Trump’s inauguration day. The Trump administration in March announced its initial plans for a RIF at ED, with President Donald Trump signing an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to dissolve the department.
On Monday, SCOTUS paused this injunction, which would allow the Trump administration to lay off nearly 1,400 employees at ED while the lawsuit makes its way through the court system. McMahon said that Monday’s Supreme Court ruling is a “win” for students and families.
“We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most – to students, parents, and teachers,” McMahon said in a statement. “As we return education to the states, this Administration will continue to perform all statutory duties while empowering families and teachers by reducing education bureaucracy.”
NASFAA President and CEO Melanie Storey voiced concerns over Monday’s decision, noting that a RIF at the department will impact financial aid offices’ ability to deliver much-needed financial assistance to students seeking a postsecondary education.
“Our students and our members need clarity and reliable support for these critical programs,” Storey said in a statement. “At the end of the day, the Trump administration — all administrations — must deliver on the promise and the programs that Congress passed to support students who wish to pursue postsecondary education.”
ED has repeatedly stated that this RIF will “not directly” impact students and families.
However, NASFAA in May conducted a survey of financial aid professionals to understand how ED’s RIF is affecting institutional operations, staffing, and student service. In that survey, 59% of institutions reported noticeable changes in Federal Student Aid (FSA) responsiveness or delays in processing timelines since the RIF.
SCOTUS lifted the injunction on the RIF through an order, and the court’s majority did not offer an explanation of the order.
However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissenting opinion, where she was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan.
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayer wrote. “Two lower courts rose to the occasion, preliminarily enjoining the mass firings while the litigation remains ongoing. Rather than maintain the status quo, however, this Court now intervenes, lifting the injunction and permitting the Government to proceed with dismantling the Department. That decision is indefensible.”
This is a developing story. Stay tuned to Today’s News for more information on how ED’s RIF is impacting financial aid offices.
Publication Date: 7/15/2025
James C | 7/15/2025 11:56:08 AM
Handing a $1.5 trillion loan portfolio to the US Treasury will be a disaster. Have you ever purchased or sold a US bond on their website? It's complicated and antiquated, something from 1991. I do not trust my state agency to administer anything given what happened this past year. SCOTUS has gone rogue. Congress established the Department and only Congress can take it away, not a fake king.
Amanda G | 7/15/2025 11:48:21 AM
This is only a "win for students and families" who live in states like New York, Massachusetts, California, etc. Those states can afford to supplement the lost federal dollars. The students and families in states like Mississippi and Alabama will definitely not feel like they are winning when federal education dollars dry up and those states do not have the money (or motivation) to make up the shortfall.
Also, they are already pushing higher education "to the states" in the form of zero student or parent assistance with the FAFSA. If the AI chatbot can't answer their question, the response is "contact your school" so we are solving all those problems, or trying to, with the exact same number of staff we have always had. And we usually can't figure out why an SAI wasn't calculated when everything has been provided and there are no rejects or C Flags. We now have 3 of the 4 people in our office spending a big portion of their day assisting students with FAFSA issues. Programs like Trio will also not be supported or continued by low tax revenue states
Lee Ann T | 7/15/2025 11:10:38 AM
That is a ludicrous and silly statement "they don't want needy students to go". It is definitely showing a political side. Trump has held colleges accountable for their actions and the Dept. of Ed for theirs and it's due time. Try visiting ed.gov site for all the excellent things our President has accomplished for our colleges and universities.
Lashanda C | 7/15/2025 9:35:05 AM
McMahon’s statement is completely unrealistic: “As we return education to the states, this Administration will continue to perform all statutory duties while empowering families and teachers by reducing education bureaucracy.” In reality, we’re already seeing a failure to meet those statutory responsibilities. As we approach the fall—traditionally the busiest time on college campuses—those of us working in financial aid know the situation could deteriorate even further.
David S | 7/15/2025 9:17:21 AM
This has nothing to do with efficiency and accountability; it's the Republican plan - as once stated on a NASFAA podcast in unambiguous terms by Rep Virginia Foxx - to send fewer Americans to college. The people enacting this all went to college, as did/do/will their kids. They just don't want needy students to go.
And you can't say you're doing this because the federal government has no role in education and simultaneously dictate to colleges who they can admit, who they can hire, who they must dismiss, who they must fire, what they can teach and how they must discipline students that they are finding guilty of crimes or rules without trials or any due process. Because that's not only the federal government playing a role in education, it's the federal government trying to control education.
You must be logged in to comment on this page.