Interagency Agreements: What They Signal for Federal Funding

Over the past year, under the second Trump Administration, the Department of Education (ED) has undergone a major transformation through interagency agreements.

This initiative began with 6 interagency agreements and is a manifestation of President Trump’s executive order, “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities,” which directed the closure of ED and the return of authority to the states. ED currently has 10 interagency agreements established by the Trump Administration, predicated on the initiative to move existing responsibilities to other aligned agencies, including HHS, DOS, DOL, DOI, and Treasury. While interagency agreements are not new, the extent of these ED partnerships is unprecedented; therefore, it is important to understand how they work, how they affect funding opportunities, and what to expect for the future of interagency agreements.

An interagency agreement is when a department transfers program authority to another department to streamline bureaucracy or shift priorities for other programs.

These agreements are not new to the federal bureaucracy. One of the earliest interagency agreements came in 1926 between the National Park Service and the Bureau of Public Roads, which established a partnership for road design and construction assistance in national parks. Since then, federal agencies have used these types of agreements to collaborate on addressing aligned issues. More recently, DOL, HHS, and ED passed the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act in 2014, which collectively improved workforce programs, or the current collaboration between HUD, USDA, and HHS to improve standards for housing construction and integrate health services and housing support.

However, the ED interagency agreements of 2025 mark a key shift in how interagency agreements function. Now, rather than collaborating with differing responsibilities, these partnerships are transferring ED responsibilities to other agencies. These partner agencies now take on ED administrative duties and manage ED grants. This major change affects the scope of responsibilities per agency. 

To understand the scope of change, it’s helpful to look at a recent funding opportunity jointly released by DOL and ED.

The TRIO Program, administered by ED, is a longstanding ED grant program that supports education opportunities for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This year, TRIO released one of its programs, Talent Search, through the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) under DOL, with an increased focus on workforce readiness and training, a new priority for the program. The release of this grant is the first example of the DOL/ED partnership at work within a funding opportunity.

Logistically, the opportunity is... a bit convoluted. Both DOL and ED posted the funding opportunity on each of their respective websites. However, the program's contact is an ED employee, not a DOL employee. Applications must be submitted in grants.gov, but it appears that it is DOL reviewing the applications, not ED. It is unclear whether this back-and-forth is because this is the first funding opportunity released from both ED and DOL following the interagency agreements, or if, statutorily, the Trump Administration must keep ED as part of the funding opportunity. Despite the confusing nature of this opportunity, the Talent Search Program is providing insight into how future opportunities will be released under these interagency agreements.

Based on Talent Search, we can assume the other TRIO and ED programs will be administered in a similar fashion, through partner agencies. Therefore, it is important to see which agency is releasing the funding opportunity, as that provides insight into who is reviewing it. The applicant should review the priorities of the reviewing agency to appropriately tailor their application. Additionally, given that both agencies will release guidance, it is likely that these funding opportunities will have expanded eligibility. This means the opportunities will be more competitive; proposals should confirm eligibility under these new programs. Applicants should monitor agency websites for any changes and align their applications with the changes in administration to best position their applications for success.

While interagency agreements are not new, the scale of responsibility being shifted away from the Department of Education is significant.

Given the number of ED interagency agreements already announced, additional agreements with other agencies appear likely. As these responsibilities move, funding opportunity priorities may begin to reflect the goals, language, and administrative practices of the new agency partners rather than ED’s traditional framework.

As a result, well-established education grant programs may be internally restructured, with other federal agencies assuming responsibility for distributing and managing funds. A future administration could reverse some of these agreements, but others may prove harder to unwind due to the operational complexity of reorganizing agency roles. In this sense, ED’s interagency agreements may signal a broader shift in how the federal government reorganizes funding programs and priorities without direct congressional action. 

For applicants, the practical takeaway is clear: education funding opportunities may not disappear, but they may look different. Applicants should watch for changes in eligibility language, program priorities, evaluation criteria, reporting expectations, and agency-specific terminology. The Talent Search program offers an early example of how streamlined guidance and new administrative structures could shape future funding opportunities.