Concerns Remain Over ED’s Plan to Spend Expiring IES Dollars

Higher education advocates warned for months that hundreds of millions in federal funding for education research could expire Sept. 30 if the Education Department didn’t start sending it out the door.

In late June, some of them filed a lawsuit. They argued that while public records show the White House appeared to have released most of the IES funds in May, ED still had about $316 million “that have not been obligated, and for which IES has not publicly indicated any plans to obligate.” That’s out of the $768 million Congress originally allocated to IES for fiscal year 2025, which the department had two years to spend down. (It also still remains unclear exactly how and when the White House released the money shown in the report.)

Now, IES Acting Director Matthew Soldner is saying the agency will spend all the remaining money Congress set aside for education research in “a timely manner,” according to court records released last week as part of the suit.

But Soldner’s Aug. 4 commitment hasn’t assuaged the plaintiffs’ concerns.

Education research groups—which include the National Center for Learning Disabilities and the Knowledge Alliance—argue in a court filing that ED’s latest spending plan lacks clear detail about where funds are going. It also wasn’t made public until after the lawsuit was filed, though Soldner said IES had been “widely” discussing this commitment beforehand. They also estimate that the plan leaves $10 million unobligated, meaning ED hasn’t committed to spend the money.

And even if ED does spend every remaining cent of what Congress budgeted before it expires, the plaintiffs add, waiting so long to do so still violated multiple federal laws and caused damage, such as disrupting the collection and analysis of critical data that informs education policy.

“For decades, Congress has chosen to provide significant sums of money each year to the Department of Education, and in particular its Institute of Education Sciences (IES), to carry out a vast range of educational research programs,” the motion reads. But recently, “the Office of Management and Budget [and IES] ha[ve] misused the apportionment process to wrest control of education research spending from Congress.”

The plaintiffs are now asking the district judge for a final ruling that would declare ED and OMB’s handling of congressional funds unlawful and force the agencies to spend what’s left.

ED’s Plan

The funding delay is just the latest disruption at the central federal education data collection and research funding agency.

The Trump administration has canceled more than $1 billion in contracts at IES and gutted the agency’s staffing. IES had 191 employees before Trump took office but was down to just 30 by March 31, according to a recent inspector general report.

ED officials have said they are planning to reimagine IES, and Soldner recently detailed his plans for fiscal year 2027 research grant competitions.

But as fiscal year 2026 ends, it’s difficult to track exactly how much funding the Trump administration has released to IES or how much has then been designated to specific projects, in part due to delayed OMB reports and complex ED spending plans.

And when asked about IES spending earlier this week, the Education Department declined to say exactly how much funding had been cleared for use by OMB or designated by IES to cover particular expenses. However, Soldner said in his declaration that “all remaining unrescinded fiscal year 2025 funds were recently apportioned,” or, in other words, released by OMB.

Soldner then listed three examples of funds that have been both apportioned and designated toward particular expenses, including paying for nationwide K–12 student assessments and sending out both new and continued grant awards through the National Center for Special Education Research.

But in their motion for summary judgment, NCLD and the Knowledge Alliance argue that just because the money has been apportioned doesn’t mean OMB and IES are in the clear. Those examples don’t demonstrate the spending of all apportioned funds.

They add that OMB and IES’s updated spending plan, which explains how any undesignated money will be used, is hard to interpret. For example, it’s labeled as a May document but didn’t come out publicly until this month. The spreadsheet also includes notes such as “Don’t forget to Pivot Table/Refresh” and “Please confirm what has already been apportioned and obligated.”

In a declaration filed by the plaintiffs, Joseph Carlile, an education funding consultant and former OMB staffer, conducted an analysis of IES’s spending and found that the Trump administration obligated IES funds for fiscal year 2025 “at a lower rate” than in years past. He also compared the updated spending plan to a prior version to show what he argued was a lack of clarity.

“The March spend plan was straightforward to interpret,” Carlile said. “On the other hand, the May update consisted of one summary table and several pages of detail tables. The summary table did not reflect the values in the accompanying detail tables. I cross-referenced the summary table and detail tables to assemble my estimate of the availability of these funds.”

Based on Carlile’s estimates, the updated plan wouldn’t spend all the funds set to expire.

“The [updated May] spend plan appears to leave $10 million still unapportioned, unlawfully creating a reserve,” the motion for summary judgment reads.

‘Students Deserve Nothing Less’

A federal judge will hear arguments in the case Sept. 3, after the Trump administration files its motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

What will be on the line, according to Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and vice chair of the appropriations committee, is the future of education research.

“This administration has already gravely set back education research and statistics that improve students’ educational outcomes and measure progress,” Murray told Inside Higher Ed. “Instead of breaking the law and creating chaos and uncertainty about these critical investments, the Department of Education needs to get these funds out to deserving grantees across the country without further delay. The law requires nothing less, and students deserve nothing less.”

Mamie Voight, president and CEO of the Institute for Higher Education Policy, added that this case is also critical to reinforcing the constitutional separation of powers and making it clear that only Congress holds the power of the purse.

“That is how our democracy is designed to operate. The executive branch is meant to spend according to the appropriation laws that Congress passes,” she said. “And with this large level of underspending that we’re seeing here from the Department of Education … I think that’s why those organizations have entered that litigation.”