AI has only been funded at the federal level, but will US Education Department last long enough for the transition?

US Department of Education officially asked schools to introduce artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the classroom, issuing details this week for how federal funds can be used to fund AI installation. The action represents an indispensable policy shift toward education digitization through personalized learning software, high-leverage tutoring platforms, and AI-influenced career counseling systems.

Under the guidance, the department also published a proposed rule in the Federal Register with explicit priorities for districts and schools seeking discretionary grant funding for AI projects. They are including AI literacy as part of the teaching curriculum, having the capacity to offer dual-enrollment courses in AI-related certifications to high school students, and leveraging AI to automate administrative tedium or enhance teacher professional development.

But even as this national endeavor to pursue AI starts, there is a lurking institutional issue unaddressed: the Department of Education itself does not exist so that it can regulate or support this revolution.

Technology push, oversight vacuum

In February, the Trump administration closed the Office of Educational Technology (OET), the long-troubled office that directed digital learning, edtech policy, and AI regulation in schools. The closure was months prior to the release date for the new AI guidance, creating a leadership void and long-term strategy shortfall during a period of rapidly accelerating technological upheaval.

Meanwhile, the administration is proceeding with a plan to abolish the USDepartment of Education altogether—a step that threatens to dismantle critical questions of who will be responsible for ensuring that AI is deployed safely, equitably, and efficiently in schools if the department is abolished.

This inconsistency—urging national AI adoption while reducing the very infrastructure to curb it—has unsettled across educational ranks, especially district officials tasked with making such changes without federal direction or requirement.

Cybersecurity, funding, and capacity issues

Apart from training with AI, districts also have to deal with increasing cybersecurity attacks. Schools in 2024 applied for more than $3.7 billion in support under the Federal Communications Commission's small pilot program of $200 million to improve cybersecurity, a figure that reflects the level of vulnerability and insufficient investment in digital security measures.

Federal reductions to those supporting K–12 cyber, and the phaseout of edtech guidance offices, left others in the dark. Numerous districts made use of federal threat sharing and response services now absent. Since AI tools are becoming a larger part of instruction, learning, and administration, there is a greater likelihood of cyberattacks—but support to offset those attacks has diminished.

What the new AI guidelines entail

While the policy uncertainty is a drawback, the Advisory of the Education Department does provide useful guidance to schools. It encourages the application of AI for:

Improving curriculum content and tutoring

Educating teachers on AI and computer science principles

Empowering students with disabilities using adaptive technology

Automating administratively cumbersome processes

Making industry-recognized credentials in AI accessible to students

The agency also developed five essential principles for using AI responsibly in schools: that activities be teacher-led, ethical, equitable, transparent, and consistent with current data privacy regulations.

Public feedback on the draft AI priorities will remain open through August 20, providing teachers, school administrators, education officials, and others with a chance to offer input into how federal money is spent.

A cloudy future for AI regulation in schools

Education Department use of AI is a monolith change from the way USclassrooms will be operating in the near past. But aside from the occasional federal directive—and the very real likelihood that the agency itself will cease to exist—no one has any idea who will be responsible for good implementation, student safety, and equity of access to these new technologies.

As schools go on to adopt AI, they will be expected to do so independently of government support to which institutions have grown accustomed in the past. Whether states, private actors, or new institutions will step in to cover the gap remains to be seen.