Connect with us

Society

Trump’s push to abolish the Education Department: Could it really transform schools?

So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like?

Published

on

Untitled design 3
Trump illustration by vanessazoyd from Pixabay

President-elect Donald Trump wants the Department of Education gone. During his presidential campaign, Trump made waves by repeatedly pledging to eliminate the U.S. Department of Education, calling it a symbol of federal overreach and an unnecessary drain on taxpayer money. The promise was bold: “We will ultimately eliminate the federal Department of Education,” he declared at a rally in Wisconsin back in 2016. His critics and supporters alike raised eyebrows, but what would actually happen if such a move were to be made?

The Department of Education, created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, has long played a pivotal role in shaping America’s education system. If Trump’s plan were to move forward, it could mean sweeping changes to how K-12 schools are funded and how federal education policies are implemented.

The Core Functions of the Department

The Department of Education performs several essential roles in the American education system. For one, it funnels billions of federal dollars to states and schools. Its two major funding programs—Title I and IDEA—help support schools serving low-income students and children with disabilities. These programs provide nearly $28 billion annually to K-12 schools, although they represent only a small fraction of overall school funding. The bulk of K-12 school budgets comes from state and local taxes. The Department of Education also manages federal student loans and financial aid programs, including Pell grants, which distribute about $30 billion annually to help low-income college students.

Without these programs, how would schools and students fare? The answer isn’t clear-cut, but one thing is certain: federal funding has become a significant tool in ensuring access to education, especially for marginalized groups.

trump 2023751 640
Image by Pete Linforth/Pixabay

The Bureaucratic Web: Oversight and Regulations

In addition to distributing funding, the Department of Education plays an oversight role, ensuring that schools meet federal standards and investigating issues of discrimination. Through its Office of Civil Rights, the department enforces rules aimed at preventing discrimination on the basis of race, gender, and disability in schools. Over the years, the department has also been a key player in regulating hot-button issues—such as protections for transgender students and regulations on student loan forgiveness programs.

But what happens if this regulatory body no longer exists? One potential scenario could involve the transfer of these responsibilities to other federal agencies or a decentralization of decision-making power to state and local governments.

Federal Funds: The Strings Attached

Federal money doesn’t come without conditions. For instance, schools that receive funding through programs like Title I must adhere to certain rules and regulations. These guidelines can sometimes create what many consider “red tape.” For years, critics of the Department have argued that the bureaucracy tied to federal funding slows down school improvement efforts and imposes undue burdens on local administrators.

According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure

Some policy experts suggest that even if the Department of Education were dissolved, the funding itself could continue—possibly in the form of block grants that offer more flexibility to local districts. But others warn that dismantling the department could result in a loss of essential oversight and services, especially for students with special needs.

What Happens to Federal Education Programs?

Interestingly, many of the funding programs the Department of Education oversees—particularly Title I and IDEA—were in place before the agency itself existed. This raises the question: Would these programs disappear if the department were abolished?

According to experts, the funding programs might survive, albeit in a different structure. Congress, which ultimately controls federal spending, has historically resisted efforts to cut education funding, even during budget negotiations when past presidents proposed cuts. Many believe that, even if the Department were to close its doors, the political and public support for these funding streams would likely push them into different agencies or programs.

Can Congress Actually Abolish the Department of Education?

While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress—a challenge that previous efforts have failed to overcome. Even President Ronald Reagan, shortly after the department’s creation in 1980, proposed its elimination but eventually backed down due to lack of congressional support. The Trump administration also tried to merge the Education and Labor Departments, but that effort stalled in Congress.

Even if the GOP gains unified control of Washington in the coming years, it remains uncertain whether there will be enough support to completely dismantle the Department of Education.

The Road Ahead

So, what would an America without the Department of Education look like? In reality, it’s likely that some form of federal oversight and funding would continue, but the shape of it could change significantly. If Congress and the president were to act, the most likely outcome would be a shift in how federal funds are distributed—potentially with fewer strings attached—and a reorganization of some of the department’s key functions.

While Trump’s rhetoric may have made abolition sound simple, shutting down a federal agency is no small feat. It would require an act of Congress

Ultimately, the debate about whether to abolish the Department of Education touches on much larger issues: how to balance federal power with state autonomy, how to fund public schools fairly, and how to ensure that all students, regardless of background, have access to a high-quality education.

As the conversation continues, one thing is clear: any significant change to the Department of Education would have profound implications for the future of education in America, particularly for its most vulnerable students. Whether that future is shaped by a more decentralised approach or by a reformed federal agency remains to be seen. But one thing is for sure—the stakes are high.

Society

EVs avoided oil equal to 70% of Iran’s exports in 2025

Electric vehicles avoided oil equal to 70% of Iran’s exports in 2025, reshaping global energy security amid Middle East tensions.

Published

on

Electric vehicles avoided oil equal to 70% of Iran’s exports in 2025, reshaping global energy security amid Middle East tensions.
Image credit: Mike Bird/Pexels

When tensions rise around Iran, the world braces for oil shocks. Markets react, governments worry, and the Strait of Hormuz once again becomes the centre of global attention.

But in 2025, something quietly shifted beneath this familiar cycle of crisis.

Electric vehicles avoided oil consumption equivalent to nearly 70% of Iran’s exports.

According to analysis by Ember, the global EV fleet reduced oil demand by 1.7 million barrels per day, approaching the 2.4 million barrels per day exported by Iran through the Strait of Hormuz.

This is not just a milestone for clean energy. It marks the beginning of a structural change in how the world responds to geopolitical risk.

The world’s oil vulnerability is still profound

Despite rapid technological progress, the global economy remains deeply exposed to oil shocks.

Nearly 79% of the world’s population lives in oil-importing countries, making them vulnerable to disruptions in supply and price volatility.

The costs are enormous. For every $10 increase in oil prices, global import bills rise by around $160 billion annually.

At the heart of this vulnerability lies the Middle East—and specifically the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow passage carries around one-fifth of global oil exports, while the wider Gulf region accounts for 29% of global oil supply.

The concentration of supply through such a fragile corridor makes the global economy acutely sensitive to regional instability.

“This is Asia’s Ukraine moment,” said Daan Walter, principal at Ember. “Oil is the Achilles’ heel of the global economy… Asia’s oil vulnerability has been exposed by the current crisis.”

Even oil producers cannot escape the shock

One of the most counterintuitive realities of today’s energy system is that producing oil domestically does not shield economies from global price spikes.

Oil is traded in global markets. When supply is disrupted, prices rise everywhere.

In Texas, one of the world’s largest oil-producing regions, gasoline prices increased by more than 25% following recent geopolitical tensions—in some cases exceeding rises seen in oil-importing countries.

This reflects a fundamental truth: oil dependency is a global vulnerability, not a local one.

The true cost of fossil fuel dependence

The financial burden of this dependency is immense.

Net importing countries spent approximately $1.7 trillion on fossil fuel imports in 2024, with many economies losing significant portions of GDP to energy imports.

For developing economies, the impact is even more severe. Rising prices can strain public finances, disrupt industries, and increase the cost of living.

The report highlights a stark dynamic: when supply tightens, wealthier countries can outbid poorer ones, effectively pushing them out of the market.

Energy insecurity, in this sense, is not just an economic issue—it is a question of global inequality.

EVs are emerging as a geopolitical force

Against this backdrop, the rise of electric vehicles is beginning to alter the equation.

The fact that EVs avoided oil demand equivalent to 70% of Iran’s exports is not just symbolic—it is strategic.

It shows that demand-side transformation can counterbalance supply-side risk.

“Electric vehicles are increasingly cost-competitive with gasoline cars,” Walter said. “Oil volatility means EVs are a common-sense choice for countries wishing to insulate themselves from future shocks.”

The economic benefits are already visible:

  • China saves over $28 billion annually in avoided oil imports
  • Europe saves around $8 billion
  • India saves about $0.6 billion

These savings highlight a critical shift: energy security is moving from controlling supply to reducing dependence.

A broader shift: the rise of “electrotech”

Electric vehicles are only one part of a wider transformation described in the report as “electrotech”—a combination of EVs, solar, wind, batteries, and heat pumps.

Together, these technologies can electrify more than three-quarters of global energy demand and significantly reduce fossil fuel imports.

If deployed at scale, they could cut import dependence by up to 70%, fundamentally reshaping global energy systems.

Unlike fossil fuels, which require continuous imports, these technologies provide long-term stability. Once installed, they operate without fuel costs, price volatility, or geopolitical exposure.

As the report puts it, this is the difference between “renting energy” and “owning it.”

The Strait of Hormuz: from chokepoint to turning point

The current crisis highlights the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz—but it may also accelerate its decline as a central pillar of global energy security.

Asia, which imports around 40% of its oil through the strait, is particularly exposed.

But unlike previous crises, countries now have viable alternatives.

Renewable energy costs have fallen sharply. EV adoption is accelerating across both developed and emerging markets. And electrification technologies are scaling faster than expected.

The report suggests this could become a defining moment—similar to how Europe’s response to the Ukraine crisis reshaped its energy strategy.

Peak oil may arrive sooner than expected

The implications extend beyond immediate crisis management.

The International Energy Agency had projected global oil demand would peak around 2029. But recent developments suggest that peak may arrive sooner.

Electrification is not only reducing demand—it is changing expectations about the future of energy.

The report notes that demand growth forecasts have already been revised downward, with the possibility that global oil demand could plateau—or even decline—earlier than anticipated.

Crises, historically, have accelerated structural transitions. This may be another such moment.

A structural shift beneath the headlines

Geopolitical tensions may dominate headlines, but the deeper story lies beneath.

The fossil fuel system—dependent on continuous trade through vulnerable chokepoints—is becoming increasingly fragile. At the same time, the technologies needed to replace it are becoming cheaper, faster, and more accessible.

The fact that EVs alone have already offset oil demand equivalent to most of Iran’s exports signals a profound shift.

It suggests that the balance of power in global energy is beginning to move—from regions that supply oil to technologies that reduce the need for it.

The Strait of Hormuz may remain a critical artery for now. But its grip on the global economy is loosening.

And for the first time in decades, the world has a credible path to reduce its dependence on it.

Continue Reading

Society

Hormuz Crisis Exposes Global Fertiliser Dependency Risks

Hormuz disruption highlights risks of fertiliser dependency as experts warn of food security threats and call for agroecology shift.

Published

on

Hormuz crisis highlights risks of fertiliser dependency as experts warn of food security threats and call for agroecology shift.
Image credit: Aleksander Dumała/Pexels

Fertiliser dependency has come under sharp global scrutiny as tensions around the Strait of Hormuz highlight how geopolitical disruptions can ripple through food systems, raising concerns over food security and farm resilience.

The Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global energy supplies, plays a central role in fertiliser production due to its link to fossil fuel exports. Any disruption threatens to push up fertiliser costs—directly impacting agricultural production worldwide, according to an analysis by Zero Carbon Analytics (ZCA).

How Fertiliser Dependency Shapes Global Food Systems

Experts warn that modern agriculture’s heavy reliance on fossil fuel-based fertilisers has created a fragile system vulnerable to geopolitical shocks.

“This vulnerability is a choice, and one that we all pay for,” says Raj Patel, economist and food systems expert at the University of Texas. “Nearly 90 percent of the $540 billion in annual agricultural support goes to the same chemical-intensive production that depends on them. We didn’t stumble into this dependency. We funded it.”

The reliance is deeply embedded in global subsidies and production models, making rapid transitions difficult but increasingly necessary.

Farmers Face Rising Costs Amid Hormuz Tensions

Farmers across Asia are already feeling the pressure of rising fertiliser prices as geopolitical tensions escalate.

“With fertiliser prices rising—and the planting season soon to begin—Asia’s farmers are once again being forced to choose between rising costs and falling yields,” says Shamika Mone, President of the Inter-Continental Network of Organic Farmer Organisations.

She adds that consumers are also likely to face further food price hikes, underlining the broader socio-economic impact.

A Fragile System Under Stress

The current crisis is being described as more than just a supply issue—it is a structural problem in global agriculture.

“What we are seeing is not just a fertiliser and commodity crisis, it is a stress test to a fragile food system that is not designed to be resilient,” says Belén Citoler of the World Rural Forum.

The disruption has exposed how interconnected energy markets and food systems have become, with shocks in one quickly cascading into the other.

Agroecology and Organic Farming as Alternatives

Across continents, experts and farmers are calling for a shift toward more resilient agricultural practices that reduce fertiliser dependency.

“The conflict in Iran highlights the vulnerability of an agriculture system that is overly reliant on fossil fuel fertilisers,” says Oliver Oliveros of the Agroecology Coalition.

He points to growing efforts by countries such as Brazil, Kenya, and Vietnam to support agroecological practices that use natural fertilisers and nitrogen-fixing plants.

Farmers themselves are also adapting.

“Geopolitical conflicts… show how vulnerable our agricultural system has become,” says German farmer Olivier Jung, who has been experimenting with crop diversity and reduced external inputs to build resilience.

Similarly, Brazilian farmer Thales Bevilacqua Mendonça warns that global supply chains are increasingly unstable, urging a shift toward ecological farming practices.

Policy Shift Seen as Key to Reducing Fertiliser Dependency

Experts argue that reducing fertiliser dependency will require systemic policy changes, particularly in how agricultural subsidies are allocated.

“To speed up the transition, we need to redirect billions in agriculture subsidies… and invest in approaches that safeguard farmers and consumers from energy price volatility and climate shocks,” Oliveros adds.

Organic farming advocates also stress that proven alternatives already exist.

“If we really want to take food security seriously, policymakers must support the most resilient models… organic farming must become a pillar,” says French farmer Olivier Chaloche.

A Turning Point for Global Food Security?

The Strait of Hormuz disruption may prove to be a wake-up call for governments worldwide.

As fertiliser dependency becomes increasingly tied to geopolitical instability, the push toward agroecology, organic farming, and resilient food systems is gaining urgency.

The question now is whether policymakers will act fast enough to transform a system many experts say is no longer sustainable.

Continue Reading

Society

South Asia’s $107 Billion LNG Expansion Faces Risk Amid Middle East War: Report

A new report warns South Asia’s LNG infrastructure expansion could face economic and energy risks as Middle East tensions disrupt global gas markets.

Published

on

South Asia is investing $107 billion in LNG infrastructure — but a new report warns geopolitical tensions could make this strategy risky.

South Asia’s ambitious expansion of liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure could expose the region to significant economic and energy security risks as geopolitical tensions disrupt global energy markets, according to a new report by Global Energy Monitor.

The report warns that escalating conflict in the Middle East, particularly attacks on Iran and disruptions to shipping routes in the Strait of Hormuz, could sharply affect LNG prices and supply chains, putting pressure on energy-importing economies such as India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan.

Data from the Asia Gas Tracker, compiled by Global Energy Monitor, shows that the three South Asian countries have about $107 billion worth of LNG terminals and gas pipelines either announced or currently under construction.

Together, these projects represent a major share of global gas infrastructure expansion. Southern Asia accounts for 17% of global LNG import capacity under development—about 110.7 million tonnes per year—and 17% of global gas pipelines by length, totalling 34,146 kilometres, according to the report.

India’s expanding gas infrastructure

India is pursuing one of the largest gas infrastructure expansions in the world. The report notes that the country is developing the second-largest LNG terminal expansion globally and the third-largest gas pipeline buildout.

A chart in the report indicates that India ranks among the top countries worldwide for pipeline construction, with nearly three-quarters of its planned gas pipeline network already under construction.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh and Pakistan each have enough LNG import capacity in development to roughly double their existing capacity, highlighting the scale of the region’s dependence on imported gas.

Price volatility and project risks

Despite projections that global LNG supply could increase later in the decade, the report warns that the market remains highly sensitive to geopolitical disruptions. Even relatively balanced markets can experience price spikes if shipping routes or production are affected.

The ongoing conflict in the Middle East demonstrates how quickly a promising growth market can shift into an affordability crisis, potentially delaying or cancelling major infrastructure projects.

“We’ve seen this story before, and South Asian economies that import LNG will struggle with these price shocks. It’s a reminder of the risks of building new gas infrastructure, and that domestic alternatives like renewable power are more affordable and reliable in the long run..” said Robert Rozansky, global LNG analyst for Global Energy Monitor.

History of cancelled LNG projects

The report also highlights a pattern of stalled or cancelled gas infrastructure projects across the region.

Over the past decade, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan have shelved or cancelled two to three times more LNG import capacity than they have successfully brought online, reflecting the financial and market risks associated with LNG development.

According to the report, India cancelled or shelved 49 million tonnes per annum of LNG capacity, compared with 23 million tonnes that entered operation between 2016 and 2025. Bangladesh and Pakistan show similar trends.

Renewables gaining ground

At the same time, renewable energy is increasingly competing with natural gas in the region’s power sectors.

Solar generation in Pakistan has more than tripled over the past three years, while India is projected to meet over 40% of its electricity demand with renewable energy by 2030.

The report also notes that improvements in energy storage technologies are enhancing grid flexibility, potentially reducing the role of gas as a backup power source.

Emerging alternatives such as green hydrogen could also help reduce reliance on imported fossil fuels for industrial use in the future.

The Asia Gas Tracker, developed by Global Energy Monitor, is an online database that maps and categorises gas infrastructure across the continent, including pipelines, LNG terminals, gas-fired power plants, and gas fields. The tracker is updated annually and documents projects through detailed data pages.

Continue Reading

Trending