The Quiet Kill of Job Corps

The Trump administration promotes trade careers loudly but shuts down the programs that made them reachable for the lowest-income students.

by Met Middleson

June 3, 2025

The Trump administration has made workforce development a signature talking point, promising a national revival of skilled trades and blue-collar pride. But while the speeches get louder, the programs that once delivered those careers are going silent.

CONTEXT MATTERS

The Job Corps program was created in 1964 to offer job training, housing, and education to low-income youth across the country. For decades, it has been a critical safety net for students who fell outside the reach of traditional public education, including those who dropped out, those who aged out, and those who were simply overlooked.

Now, nearly every contractor-operated center in the country is scheduled to close. The decision, announced by the Department of Labor under the Trump administration, will eliminate nearly 100 Job Corps sites by the end of June 2025.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

The Department of Labor cited a $140 million deficit in 2024, projected to rise to $213 million in 2025, as a primary reason for the Job Corps shutdown. Officials also pointed to a 38.6 percent graduation rate and reports of misconduct to justify the closures.

However, these cuts align with a broader agenda led by the Trump administration to reduce what it deems as inefficiencies in the federal government. Central to this initiative is the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), established in January 2025 and initially led by Elon Musk. DOGE has been instrumental in implementing aggressive cost-cutting measures across various federal programs, including education and workforce development.

Critics argue that the closure of Job Corps centers is less about program performance and more about a political strategy to dismantle publicly funded services in favor of privatized alternatives. While the administration proposes increased funding for career and technical education, these funds often flow through state systems and may not reach the marginalized students that Job Corps served.

Furthermore, the administration’s broader education budget includes significant cuts to programs like Pell Grants and Federal Work-Study, further limiting opportunities for low-income students

The administration’s actions suggest a preference for privatized, pay-to-play trade education, leaving behind those who need support the most.

DIFFERENT STUDENTS, DIFFERENT NEEDS

While many public high schools and community colleges now offer trade programs, Job Corps has long served a distinct and often more vulnerable population. The program specifically targets low-income youth aged 16 to 24 who face significant barriers to education and employment. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, approximately 80 percent of Job Corps participants have not completed high school, and many come from challenging socio-economic backgrounds.

Unlike traditional trade schools, which typically require tuition and may not provide comprehensive support services, Job Corps offers its students free housing, meals, healthcare, and a structured environment conducive to learning. This residential model is crucial for students who lack stable housing or supportive home environments. For instance, at the Glenmont Job Corps Center in New York , 98 percent of students live on campus, many having come from dangerous or impoverished circumstances.

In essence, for students who cannot afford tuition, lack reliable transportation, or do not have a high school diploma, Job Corps is not merely an alternative—it is often the only viable pathway to gainful employment and self-sufficiency.

POLITICAL CONTRADICTIONS

While the administration has proposed a $900 million increase for career and technical education, most of that funding supports programs inside high schools and community colleges. Job Corps served students who were no longer enrolled in either.

Eliminating that program creates a void with no clear replacement. These are students who have already aged out of the traditional system or were never part of it to begin with. Without Job Corps, many of them will not have access to trade education at all—no tuition assistance, no housing, and no structured path into the workforce.

REBUILDING FOR FEWER PEOPLE

This is not just a shift. It is a signal. Federal programs that once served the margins are being dismantled in favor of private-sector alternatives, often with high tuition, fewer supports, and greater barriers to entry. Trade school will still exist, but increasingly only for those who can already afford it.

Supporting trade careers should mean expanding access, not eliminating it. If we are going to rebuild American labor from the ground up, we cannot start by locking out the people who need it most.