Whether on purpose or by accident, the Trump administration’s new voucher program could do something it never promised to do: help public schools. It’s a bit of a surprise from the White House that promised to abolish the Department of Education and then dismantled large parts of it. But under rules released this month by the U.S. Treasury Department, the program authorizing the first Federal Scholarship Tax Credit allows kids to receive a voucher even if they stay in their public school.

That’s an important distinction from state-level programs. Advocates praise voucher programs as the epitome of “education freedom” because, they say, it empowers parents to choose the best education for their children. But the way vouchers have been implemented at the state level drains resources from public schools and primarily subsidizes choices families have already made to send their kids to private schools. The federal program is an unexpected improvement over state-level programs but still comes with a host of flaws and caveats.

Here’s how it works: Beginning in January, donors may deduct contributions of up to $1,700 per individual and $3,400 per couple to “scholarship-granting organizations” from their federal taxes. The organizations may distribute the money in the form of vouchers to schools to use on eligible students (those making 300% or less of a region’s median income).

The money can be used to pay for private school tuition and a host of related programs, but public schools can also use the funds for eligible students, on things like tutoring, after-school programs, transportation and special education services.

The federal rules have won over some surprising critics, like Josh Cowen, a Michigan State University education professor who has spent two decades researching voucher programs. He argues that state voucher programs are a danger to American education because they “severely hinder academic growth — especially for vulnerable kids” and siphon resources from public schools to private ones.

But, Cowen told me, because the new plan doesn’t do that, “I just can’t in good faith say this is going to defund public schools the way state plans do.”

That could explain why 31 states — covering 59% of the nation’s public school population — have decided to accept the federal vouchers, including Democrat-led states New York and Colorado.

The remaining 19 holdouts are all led by Democrats and, for them, it’s a tough call. Most of those governors oppose voucher programs and don’t want to see the federal program succeed, but if they turn down the federal money for private schools, they also lose the opportunity to better fund their public schools.

And the program does have some major flaws. The federal vouchers will subsidize private school tuition and steer taxpayer money to religious schools while setting no standards for academic performance or treating all kids fairly.

The biggest beneficiaries are likely to be families that have already chosen to send their kids to private schools, as is already the case in states with universal voucher programs. In Florida, 69% of the new voucher students had already been enrolled in a private school. In New Hampshire, that total was 89%; in Wisconsin, 77%; in Arizona, 80%; and in North Carolina, 87%.

Jon Valant, director of the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institute, and his colleagues recently analyzed the potential donor stream for the federal program and concluded it will reinforce the same pattern. Because the tax credits will be used “disproportionately by wealthy individuals in wealthy communities,” the program is more likely to become a benefit “for rich kids than a source of redistributive, charitable giving,” he wrote.

What’s more, the federal voucher rules could exacerbate the income inequities and discrimination seen in many state voucher programs. “State leaders have virtually no control over this program after deciding whether they will participate,” Valant notes. For example, states can’t prevent the scholarship-granting organizations from discriminating against certain classes of students — those with LGBTQ parents, those who practice certain religions or those with disabilities.

Congress did not allocate a specific appropriation to pay for the program, which was tucked in to the so-called Big Beautiful Bill last year. The drop in tax revenue will expand the deficit and cost taxpayers $25.9 billion over 10 years, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. And while there are reporting requirements and qualification checks, there are no guardrails to make sure the money is used wisely.

Congress should either remedy these problems or replace the entire program with something better. For starters, they could require students that accept federal vouchers in private schools to take the same exams as students in public schools. They could erect financial guardrails — to prevent the kinds of voucher fraud that’s occurred in states like Florida and Arizona. And they could give states the ability to ensure that the funds go to students who need them most and prevent them from discriminating against any student.

There’s nothing wrong with sending more money to states for education, but it should come with assurances that taxpayer money will be used to benefit all students, not the elite few.

_____

This column reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Mary Ellen Klas is a politics and policy columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. A former capital bureau chief for the Miami Herald, she has covered politics and government for more than three decades.

_____

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com/opinion. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.