Well, that was an epic Republican bloodbath. That’s even despite a Republican-friendly Senate map and a mid-decade Republican dummymander intended to shore up their feeble House majority. For all that, Democrats came away with a hefty Senate majority (including new senators in South Carolina, Texas, and Kansas!), most of the governors’ mansions, and what’s going to be their biggest House majority in decades. This was a historic defeat on par with 1994 and 2006—one that’s drawn comparisons to the post-Watergate hurricane half a century ago. But what’s it all mean for education?

It’s too early to truly say. But while answering queries Tuesday night and Wednesday morning about what the election results may mean for federal education, there were several points I found myself making repeatedly. Without further ado, here they are.

What do you expect the new Democratic majorities to focus on first—and what’s that mean for education?

Oversight, with a vengeance. They’ll focus on administration misconduct that advances a broader narrative. Think: Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding festivities getting paid for by a Russian oligarch or secretive corporate contributions to the president’s ballroom. Most of this won’t be education related. But it could include DOGE’s ham-fisted gutting of the Department of Education, the dismantling of ED via interagency agreements, and back-channel shakedowns of college presidents. If congressional staff can unearth paper trails left by careless DOGE staff or shared by payback-minded university officials, they’ll have stories to tell.

While the election wasn’t about education, can this be seen as a repudiation of Trump’s aggressive assault on universities and colleges?

Not really—with a caveat. The exit polls made clear this was about the cost of living, economic frustrations, and dissatisfaction with the undeclared war with Iran. Trump’s Ivy League machinations? Not so much. That said, the polls have also revealed broad concerns about this administration’s corruption and penchant for chaos. I think the White House’s disregard for democratic norms was part of the story here, and it’s easy to argue that its make-it-up-as-you-go arm-twisting of colleges was part of that.

Could the Democratic wins mean more money in the federal budget for early childhood, K–12, or higher ed?

Sure. The new majorities certainly support more money for things like early childhood, Pell Grants, and K–12 teacher pay. Given that neither Trump nor the Democrats have shown any concern for our staggering $40 trillion national debt or the $2 trillion deficit, there are lots of ways to imagine a deal getting done. While the bond markets or Social Security’s imminent bankruptcy might force a budget reckoning, there’s room for Democrats and Trump to agree on upsized spending and just leave the tab for later. Keep in mind, though, that Democrats have been talking a lot more about health care than the cost of college—so I expect that education outlays might get squeezed by other priorities.

Does this mean Trump and the Democrats might be able to work together?

Might be. Before election night was over, Trump had insisted he’s still hugely popular, threatened to unleash his veto pen, and mused that he might eventually be able to work with the new Democratic leadership. When you’re dealing with a senescent fabulist unmoored from policy principles, anything is possible. Now, Democratic hatred of Trump could take deal-making off the table. The same could be true of Trump’s butthurt ego. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if Democrats opted to play the Putin card—flattering Trump, indulging his ego, and winning lots of White House concessions for their trouble.

What does that mean for the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit (FSTC)?

Hoo boy. It could mean several things. We could see Democratic governors in red and purple states opting into the program or reaffirming their state’s participation, strengthening its standing on the left. But the lion’s share of congressional Democrats have called for abolishing the FSTC. If they move on that, they’ll likely have the votes to push it through the Senate via reconciliation (or the standard legislative process, if Democrats follow through on calls to abolish the filibuster). Most observers would expect Trump to veto. But he never talks about the FSTC and isn’t obviously invested in it. One can imagine Democrats offering a deal that would lead Trump to abandon the policy. Of course, White House intransigence or Democratic unwillingness to deal with Trump could make that a non-starter. Meanwhile, with Democrats enjoying a massive House majority, a favorable Senate map in 2028, and a strong tailwind out of the midterms, we could see a narrative take hold that the FSTC’s future is hanging by a thread. That kind of thing can turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Is there anything Democrats can do to reverse Trump’s executive actions on things like gender identity or DEI?

Since these are executive actions, there’s not much that they can do directly (this will be familiar to House Republicans who had to coexist with reviled Biden executive actions in 2023 and 2024). Democrats will leverage oversight to press the administration, raise questions about how the executive orders have been adopted and implemented, and shift the narrative around them. They’ll use budget negotiations and the appropriations process to attach language that restricts what the administration can do or how federal agencies can use funds. This is how Congress might seek to unwind the interagency agreements used to dismantle the Department of Education, for instance. Of course, reconstituting ED won’t be easy or immediate even if Congress does attempt it.

What do the results mean for the direction of Democrats on education?

We shall see. It was a very good night for the Democratic Socialists of America and the party’s radical wing. But the high-profile Democratic wins in places like Kansas, Texas, South Carolina, Iowa, and Ohio were chalked up by moderate Democrats and candidates who pitched themselves as sensible correctives to destructive tariffs, Trumpian lawlessness, and Republican extremism. We’ll see whether the result is an education agenda framed by gender identity, “anti-racism,” and hostility to school choice—meaning Democrats would be on the wrong side of some emotionally resonant 70–30 issues—or a party that moves past “Woke 1.0.” If Democrats can move on, the centrist and DSA wings will find common cause on some version of “affordability,” early childhood spending, and college costs.

What’s it mean for Republicans?

Well, while Republicans have been driving the education agenda in the states, the only education legislating that the Republican trifecta has done in Washington involved the higher ed and FSTC provisions of the 2025 reconciliation bill. The rest has been executive action and rulemaking by administrative agencies. That stuff will continue. But the administration will now face spiky scrutiny rather than the supine Congress it’s counted on for the past two years. Meanwhile, although Republicans just endured a devastating repudiation of Trumpism, the casualties included many of the party’s more serious leaders—the ones who’d had success with purple or light red constituencies. That leaves open the question of whether this election will finally shake Trump’s grip on the party or whether the Trumpist rump will tighten its grip heading into 2028. This isn’t an education story, but it’s one that will nevertheless have enormous implications for education.

Frederick Hess is director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and an executive editor of Education Next.

This post originally appeared on the Rick Hess on Education Substack.