$5 Billion in Federal K–12 Formula Funding Hangs in the Balance Between White House and Senate Proposals

This blog is part of the series, Money Matters, exploring research on the role of school funding in advancing equitable opportunities and outcomes for all students and elevating evidence-based policy and practice solutions.

Every year the federal government provides states with critical K–12 education funding to support the academic success and well-being of their students. Yet funding for fiscal year (FY) 2026, which starts in about a month, has not been enacted and current Congressional and administration proposals are billions of dollars apart.

The Trump administration’s budget request for FY 2026 would cut overall education funding by nearly 16% compared to current funding levels, while the bipartisan U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee’s FY 2026 bill largely maintains current funding levels (FY 2024).

When it comes to K–12 education, the administration proposes reducing or eliminating funding for nine K–12 education formula-funded programs (detailed below), which send funds to every state, resulting in a cut of about $5 billion nationally. If the administration’s proposal were passed, Alaska, for example, would receive 89% less funding from these nine programs than it would under the bipartisan Senate bill—a difference of $46 million. The following differences in the two proposals for these nine programs are especially noteworthy:

• Across the nine federal formula programs, nationally, states would receive 71% or about $5 billion less in federal K–12 education funding under the administration’s proposal than they would under the Senate bill.
• For 11 states (Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, and Wyoming), the difference between the Senate’s and administration’s proposals for these programs would be a reduction of 80% or more.
• Four states (California, Florida, New York, and Texas) would receive at least $265 million less in federal K–12 funding under the administration’s proposal compared to the Senate’s proposal across these nine programs.

The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Committee is expected to begin consideration of its education funding bill when it returns from the August recess. As with every year since 1996, it is likely that Congress will not enact all funding in time for the coming fiscal year, which starts on October 1. Instead, Congress will likely need to pass a short-term funding bill to give itself more time to work on the final FY 2026 funding bill or face a government shutdown.

As the House considers its proposal, and negotiations transpire across the House, Senate, and administration, understanding the different state-level implications of the Senate and Trump administration approaches can help inform the final funding bill.

Nine K–12 Federal Formula Grant Programs Impacted

The difference in what states would receive for K–12 education under the two proposals is due primarily to the administration’s proposed cuts across nine federal K–12 formula-funded programs. First, the administration would eliminate funding entirely for two formula grant programs totaling nearly $1.3 billion: The Migrant Education Program (ESEA Title I-C), which supports migratory children in reaching challenging academic standards and graduating from high school; and the English Language Acquisition Program (ESEA Title III), which help students learn English and meet challenging state academic standards. The Senate proposal maintains dedicated funding for both programs.

The administration would then consolidate the remaining seven into a single block grant, along with 11 competitive grant programs. This approach would reduce funding across these combined 18 programs by nearly 70% compared to the Senate’s approach, which keeps all programs in place, and mostly maintains current funding levels for each of the programs. That is $6.5 billion for the 18 programs in the Senate bill compared to the administration’s $2 billion block grant. The seven formula grant programs included in the administration’s block grant are:

• State Assessments (ESEA Title I-B). These funds support the development, administration, and effective use of federally required state standards and systems of assessment.
• Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk Children and Youth (ESEA Title I-D). These funds support children and youth to succeed academically and transition to further education, training, or employment and the provision of instructional programs, dropout prevention programs, career and college services, and counseling and mentoring and other services.
• Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (ESEA Title II-A). These funds support increasing student achievement by strengthening teacher and school leader preparation, training, recruitment, retention, and professional development opportunities and programs.
• Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (ESEA Title IV-A). These funds support improving student academic achievement, including by providing students with access to a well-rounded education, providing safe and healthy school conditions for student learning, and the effective use of technology.
• 21st Century Community Learning Centers (ESEA Title IV-B). These funds provide academic enrichment opportunities such as literacy and other educational services during non-school hours (e.g., through after-school or summer programs) for students and families—particularly those in underserved and low-performing schools.
• Rural Education (ESEA Title V-B). These funds assist rural school districts that may lack the resources to compete effectively for competitive grants and may have distinct needs.
• Education for Homeless Children and Youth (McKinney-Vento Subtitle VII-B). These funds support educational access and services for PreK–12 children and youth experiencing homelessness.

Impact on State Funding

The table below details how the bipartisan Senate and Trump administration proposals would affect each state differently. While the Senate Appropriations Committee proposal leaves funding at roughly current levels for states, the administration’s proposed cuts across the nine federal K–12 formula grant programs would significantly decrease state funding. These cuts would limit students’ access to science, technology, engineering, and math programs and after-school and summer learning and enrichment programs, and dedicated programs that support students experiencing homelessness, migratory students, and English learners. The cuts would hinder addressing shortages through high-quality pathways like teacher residencies and reduce funds that can be put toward effective professional development in core subjects, such as reading and math. Research is clear that money matters for students’ educational outcomes and that cuts in federal education funding will have a greater impact on states most reliant on these funds, which are mostly “red states” that serve high proportions of students in poverty.