Ironically, the announcement comes as the administration is aggressively inserting itself in state and local education decision-making through a little-known administrative process. 

A General Services Administration that would require almost all applicants for federal funds to certify compliance with federal laws, executive orders and regulations — including non-discrimination laws — would also mandate adherence to the administration’s interpretation of what is discriminatory. In doing so, the announcement suggests that the Trump administration is interested not just in enforcing the law, but in discouraging efforts to increase diversity in education and beyond. 

The document treats “diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility” initiatives as potentially discriminatory, including, for example, statements used by many employers to encourage applicants from various backgrounds. It rejects what the administration calls “cultural competence” requirements, potentially imperiling teaching practices that connect instruction to students’ backgrounds. And it would likely ban questions asking applicants to describe how they have overcome obstacles, as colleges are increasingly doing in the wake of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in admissions. States and school districts found in violation of the proposed requirements would be subject to funding reductions, civil liability or even criminal prosecution — stark consequences for refusing to conform to administration policy. 

The GSA’s proposal flies in the face of studies showing that teacher diversity benefits all students.

demonstrates that student and teacher diversity in schools and colleges helps Black, Hispanic and other traditionally underserved students achieve in school and beyond. As FutureEd noted in a , when students of color have teachers of color, attendance, academic achievement and college enrollment increase and disciplinary infractions decline. 

The research has an important bearing on the performance of the nation’s schools, given that students of color comprise more than 50% of public-school enrollment nationally, while nearly 80% of teachers in the country’s schools are white.

White students also benefit from having teachers of color. In a of four East Coast school districts, white students who studied under a teacher of color reported working harder and being more confident in their abilities than those who did not. Among the potential reasons for the greater engagement: Teachers of color were more likely to believe that student intelligence is malleable rather than fixed and to address student misbehavior in ways that didn’t damage classroom climate.

For their part, teachers value diversity in their ranks. In a national survey of K-12 teachers conducted for by the RAND Corp., 81% of participants said it is “important or extremely important” for students of color to be taught by teachers of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and 79% said it is “important or extremely important” to have colleagues of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Of course, subject matter expertise and effective teaching experience should be paramount in hiring decisions. And anyone who receives federal funds should comply with non-discrimination law. But the GSA announcement would put at risk diversity initiatives that are valuable in schools and would seemingly pass legal muster. 

It’s the latest administration move against diversity in education. Weeks into President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s second term, the Department of Education canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants awarded under the previous administration that had already been distributed and sought in part to increase educator diversity. 

Then, the department issued a that sought to eliminate DEI programs in school districts and institutions of higher education. It was subsequently struck down by the courts, and the department of Education dropped its appeal in January, only weeks before GSA’s proposal was released. This suggests that the administration is trying to achieve through administrative means what it failed to accomplish with last year’s letter. 

If the Trump administration wants to ensure appropriate enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in education, it has the tools to do so through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Unfortunately, the administration last year downsized OCR dramatically, leading a federal court to the reinstatement of hundreds of staffers so the agency could fulfill its duties. And staffing levels at the EEOC are down more than since the end of fiscal year .

The resulting cutback in civil rights enforcement under the Trump administration has been dramatic. As of December, OCR had , compared with 16,500 at the end of the Biden administration. 

Rather than staffing the federal government to enforce civil rights laws, the administration seems to be trying to weaken diversity efforts in schools by intimidating state and local educators with the threat of lost funding, criminal prosecution or civil liability into preemptively complying with its priorities, as it with its Dear Colleague Letter last year. 

But that tactic not only contradicts research on the value of educator diversity; it takes authority over teaching and learning out of the hands of the very leaders McMahon says she wants to empower. 

In late November, the leader of a Native American Head Start program on a reservation in Western Washington State opened an email from the federal government to see that her annual application for funding had been denied.��

The government shutdown had already delayed the much-needed funds by weeks, threatening a closure of her center, which serves toddlers and preschoolers in a tribe of less than 1,000. And now, a week after the government had re-opened, her application had been “flagged for containing language that is not allowable under current federal guidance.”

The culprit? Two trainings for teachers — one focused on inclusionary practices for kids with autism and the other on tools to support young children as they process trauma. Integral to both — and also part of the rejection — an acknowledgment that Native American children would receive priority enrollment in her Head Start classrooms and programming, as federal policy stipulates. 

“But we’re supposed to do those things,” the education director, who asked not to be identified because she fears retribution from the Trump administration, told ����Ӱ��. “So for them to pull them? I’m just — I’m not understanding.”

Ultimately, although she deeply believed the training sessions and prioritizing indigenous children were inherent to her center’s success and part of its stated mission, she wiped the offending language. Her updated grant was almost immediately approved.

Until last week such existential calculations were being forced on Head Start programs across the country by the Trump’s administration 2025 executive order banning practices involving diversity, equity and inclusion. On Tuesday, a federal judge issued temporarily halting the administration’s anti-DEI edict. 

“This is a huge victory for kids!” Joel Ryan, executive director of the Washington State Head Start & Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program, said in a statement. “When a Head Start program has their funding withheld because of their efforts to provide effective education to children with autism, serve tribal members on a reservation, or treat all families with respect, it is an attack on the fundamental promise of the Head Start program.”

The federal early education and support program for low-income families turned 60 last year, a milestone that coincided with perhaps its most challenging and chaotic year. In 2025, the Trump administration  froze — then quickly unfroze, then delayed — grant funding, shuttered five regional offices and fired scores of employees. And during the government shutdown, roughly 10,000 kids across 22 programs lost access to services.

The administration also took aim at Head Start’s of better preparing young children in poverty for school by forbidding providers from overtly addressing issues of race, gender or disability, experts said. The banned word list for grant applications included “disabilities,” “underprivileged” and “Native American.”

The Washington State Native American Head Start director said on reservations “just about every one of our children have been touched by trauma” that relates to their race and the painful history of indigenous people in the U.S. 

“If we don’t know how to work with kids where things are being triggered,” she added, “then how are we going to move forward and have the best education for these kids so they are not shutting down all the time?”

Thrilled but cautious

The Jan. 6 injunction was part of a lawsuit filed in April 2025 against Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other officials, alleging that the administration was attempting to illegally dismantle Head Start, which serves roughly 700,000 children and families a year.

Roughly 80% of Head Start’s funding comes from HHS and it has long been a stated goal of the right wing to eliminate the program.

The ruling means that for the duration of the ongoing case, the administration can’t enforce the DEI ban nor can it punish Head Start providers for including DEI-related language in their applications or practices in their programs. The judge also ruled the administration cannot fire any more employees at the Office of Head Start, though the sweeping layoffs that have already occurred stand. 

Back in September, the same judge granted a temporary injunction halting the administration from banning undocumented preschoolers and other groups of immigrant children from enrolling in Head Start programs.

In a mandated announcement Friday afternoon, the federal Office of Head Start acknowledged the court’s ruling, saying, certain actions against “DEIA (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility) … may not be implemented or enforced” for the time being, though they didn’t provide any guidance for providers who were forced to remove training and programming in past applications.

The Office of Head Start and HHS did not immediately reply to a request for comment on whether further guidance was forthcoming. 

The Washington grantee expressed cautious optimism in response to the ruling, paired with significant anxiety about what comes next. Her approved application is a binding contract, she said, and since it does not include the trauma and autism trainings or prioritization of native kids, she fears she’ll be deemed out of compliance and forced to pay back the money if she proceeds in that direction anyway. 

She said she could try to re-submit an updated application that includes the previously banned words, but “that would be calling more attention to us, and I really am afraid of the retaliation,” especially given the non-permanent nature of  the injunction.

“Whenever you put ‘temporary’ on something, I’m always cautious,” she added. “Yes, if more things come out I feel like there will be support and it’ll take care of this, but you can’t be certain of that in this political climate.” 

It’s possible the Trump administration could appeal the injunction and it’s not clear how long it will take the underlying case to work its way through the courts.

In the meantime, Ryan, executive director of Washington’s Head Start Association, emphasized that the Trump administration “can’t enforce a contract that is going against the law.” But, he acknowledged, “what that means on the ground is different, because there’s so much fear of retaliation.”

“I’m getting a sense that people will move with a lot of caution at first here to see what happens,” he said. “I don’t know if they’re going to want to make wholesale changes right out of the gate.”

Linda Morris, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project and one of the attorneys who filed the suit,  said that while this ruling “doesn’t undo those harms that the administration already inflicted,” it’s still “a huge win for families and it’s a huge win for Head Start providers.”

“We’re thrilled with the decision,” said Morris.

The initial DEI ban, she said, had put Head Start providers in “an impossible bind,” since they were being required to remove programming and words from their grant applications that were required by the statutory text of the Head Start Act. 

They were “in constant fear of being forced to comply with an unlawful directive and potentially be out of step with their mission and their obligations under the Head Start Act or,” she said, “they risk being punished and losing their funding and even being forced to close.”

‘If it weren’t real life, it would be hilarious’

Morris and her ACLU colleagues first filed the lawsuit last spring on behalf of a number of state Head Start Associations as well as parent organizations. Initially, the complaint challenged the mass layoffs and restructuring of the federal Office of Head Start as well as the DEI ban, alleging all were causing irreparable harm.

In July, they updated the complaint following the Trump administration’s unprecedented move to exclude families from Head Start based on immigration status.

The complaint was again updated after the executive director of a Head Start agency in Wisconsin had her Jan. 1 grant application returned with instructions to remove 19 words and phrases, including “institutional,” “historically,” “equity,” “belong” and “pregnant people.” Later that morning, the Office of Head Start followed up with a “complete least of [nearly 200] words” banned from Head Start applications.

In response, senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) issued a Dec. 18 to RFK Jr. expressing “outrage.”

“The chaos you are creating is already jeopardizing services for nearly 700,000 young children across this country,” they wrote, adding that “the ambiguous policy was not accompanied by clarification on what the Administration considers ‘DEI,’ and Head Start programs were left with no meaningful guidance on compliance.”

Ultimately, the Wisconsin provider updated her application to fit this new criteria, but, she wrote in a court record, “compliance is challenging because many of the words on the list are integral to Head Start programming requirements.” The grant application itself, she noted, “already includes some of these prohibited words in pre-populated text … and application questions specifically request responses that include these words.”

“This has put me in an impossible situation,” she continued.

Jennie Mauer, the executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association, said this grantee was one of three in her state serving roughly 860 young children to have their applications returned this month because of the DEI ban. Another was accused of non-compliance for writing that they would make an effort to “utilize small businesses, minority businesses, and women-owned businesses.”

“If it weren’t real life, it would be hilarious,” said Mauer. “There are things that are in the form like, ‘Tell us how you’re going to serve children with disabilities,’ but then you can’t say the word ‘disability.’ How do you wrap your head around that? It’s infuriating. I’m just wringing my hands over here.”

The latest ruling, she said, “doesn’t necessarily mean that everything is better, but it means that these worst-case scenarios aren’t going to come to fruition,” at least not immediately.

And while she’s hopeful the government will comply with the judge’s order, damage has  been done to Head Start communities, she said, leaving program leaders, providers and families worried.

“You feel like we’re in this sort of Cold War environment where people are afraid,” she said. “You shouldn’t be afraid of your government.”

Note: ����Ӱ�� replaced two of the photos that ran in an earlier version of this story.

Out of 3,619 children’s books the reviewed in 2023, only 16% depicted African/African American characters. And the numbers were even more dismal for other characters of color: 13% of books depicted Asian Pacific Islander/Asian Pacific American characters, 8% of books depicted Latino characters, and only 3% of books depicted Indigenous characters.

In today’s climate, this absence is even more alarming. Consider that the U.S. Department of Education has its Diversity & Inclusion Council, canceled diversity, equity and inclusion training contracts, and removed DEI-related resources from its website. For the third year in a row, my home state, Florida, ranked number one in restricting and removing books from schools.

Whether you’re a parent or educator, this should make you uncomfortable. These efforts to suppress and erase diverse perspectives only make it harder for children to ask questions about identity and appreciate the full beauty of the world. And communities — not just in Florida but nationwide — need to come together to protect inclusive learning spaces by organizing and showing up to local school board meetings. Fear-driven policies should not define what children are allowed to know.

Books can serve as powerful tools to teach children how to interrogate the world. Children are constantly asking questions about identity. These conversations are coming up organically, after all, we do live in a racialized society. But what happens when schools suppress ideas that could help them make sense of all they are seeing and hearing?

Well, that silence loudly communicates that educators don’t care about their thoughts and feelings, that the subject isn’t worth talking about, or that the subject must be avoided or feared. When those thoughts and comments go unaddressed, it leaves children to find answers elsewhere, sometimes from unreliable or inaccurate sources.

In addition, offering children more books with diverse characters can be incredibly affirming. For example, in my work at an education nonprofit, one day I stood observing a tutor complete a literacy assessment on a 4-year-old Black boy. As the tutor read from an assessment storybook, the boy noticed a Black in the book. “That boy is as Black as me!” he exclaimed. The tutor looked at me, at a loss for words. I looked at the student, smiled and said, “He sure is! And you’re both very handsome.” I then looked at the tutor and gave him a gentle nod to continue the assessment. In that moment, that student’s very existence felt affirmed.

Reading books with diverse characters also helps develop empathy. I recall when a friend told me about her cousin who is a first-grade teacher in Florida. She had done a mock presidential election in her class between two book characters: Grace, a brown girl, and a duck. After the students voted, the teacher had the students explain why they voted for a particular candidate and created a chart to reflect their responses.

Some of the students who voted for the duck, responded “Girls can’t be president.” Others said they voted against her because “She’s brown.” My first thought was “Wow, these are 6- and 7-year-olds. How did they even arrive at this conclusion?” But I already knew the answer. We are all part of a racialized society, and our children are already having these conversations – on the school bus, in the lunchroom, on the playground.

This is why children should be exposed to diverse characters. They need to see the potential and possibilities that all people can have. Because if they don’t see it, it can be difficult to believe it, especially at an age when you’re still developing ideas of identity and self concept.

So educators and communities must do all they can to share stories that reflect a variety of experiences to help children build empathy, understanding and pride in themselves and in one another. That’s why the Children’s Book Prize announcement filled me with such hope. Representation does matter. Banning books that could impart critical lessons of understanding sends the wrong message.

So show up to your local school board meetings, make your voices heard. Young children need to cultivate a positive identity of themselves and others; they need to know that all people have stories worth telling; and they need to believe in their unlimited potential.

According to multiple studies, anywhere between and of citizens show up to cast their ballot for school board candidates. This low turnout has made it easy for political actors to use these seats in ways that often .��

Take, for example, the Virginia Beach City school board. In May, the board voted 6-5 to to that districts roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programming and initiatives — a decision that can impact everything from diverse teacher recruitment programs to what is taught in American history. Students of color make up in the district. Four of the six board members voting for the rollback, all of them white, were elected in an off-cycle election that saw just .��

School board seats carry a lot of weight. Members don’t just hire superintendents and approve budgets, they also work closely with district leaders to make and approve interpretations of state and federal policy. They decide on critical , and work closely with district experts to approve curriculum and content and determine policies on things like school assignment plans, discipline and how to address performance gaps — all of which can have a big impact on Black and Brown students.

There are more than across roughly 14,000 districts who hold these responsibilities. They have the agency to affect change more than most any other governing body. And, with the near dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, their responsibilities have become even greater at the same time that state and federal oversight has lessened.��

Do we really want to rely on such a small portion of the population to elect these leaders?

We have to get more people out to vote, and we must demand our school leaders do what is best for the children who live in their district. Yet, serious barriers keep invested families and stakeholders from fully participating.

Students of color make up of the enrollment in public schools, yet school boards are ��overwhelmingly white and than the families they serve. This is despite evidence that diverse boards tend to facilitate .��

Inequitable access to the ballot has people of color from participating in elections. This favors the who is white, affluent and doesn’t have children enrolled in the district. These voters tend to elect incumbents leading districts .

Even if we put aside representation, the fact remains that most candidates are often for the of this local office and have proven themselves toward increasing student outcomes.

Increasing opportunities for all citizens to civilly engage and ensuring a pool of higher quality candidates are recruited and trained on the basics of school governance and policy must happen in lockstep if we are to see increased, and representative turnout.

In 2020, the culture wars shifted voters’ attention to our classrooms. Critical race theory (CRT) became the hot-button issue. My assumption was that the added attention and the absurdity of the anti-CRT craze would inspire champions of equitable education to oppose this movement.

Nope. In one calendar year, acting individually and at the behest of eliminated CRT across all programming and curriculum. , and critical programs were defunded.

At a moment where historical media attention might have helped better inform the voters and get them out to vote, there was still a disconnect at the ballot box. 

Maybe it’s civic illiteracy or a lack of awareness combined with the refrain, “I don’t have kids, I don’t care.” Regardless, , often Democrats, when they vote — meaning they skip over the municipal level races.��

Far-right political actors are taking advantage of this, putting forth candidates for seats who often and throwing toward challenging candidates.

Moms for Liberty, which was founded in 2021, has become known for leveraging low turnout elections. According to data from local government and news sources analyzed by The Brookings Institution, of their endorsed candidates won school board elections in 2022 and 33% won in 2023.

Project 1776, which says its mission is to elect , is embracing a similar tactic. In 2022, three of Project 1776’s endorsed candidates were elected to the Olathe School Board in Kansas in a race that saw In New Jersey’s Ocean City School District, three endorsed candidates won with .

When we consider who votes for school board, the increased turnout in elections like these implies the messaging used by a PAC like Project 1776 is resonating with voters and galvanizing them to the polls.

There is like Moms for Liberty are losing their sway. Nonetheless, who run for reelection win, so we can expect the hundreds of candidates endorsed by these groups and elected based on their regressive platforms to be around for a while until more voters turnout and say otherwise.

Public education is a cornerstone of democracy — and it is clearly being chipped away. America’s 80,000-plus public school board seats are essential for holding together , and they need our attention.

The list of challenges is long, and the work to eliminate them continues. At this moment, though, turning out to vote for your district’s school board members is more important than ever. 

The candidates might not always be perfect, and the for barriers are significant — but protecting education, and therefore our democratic values, begins with exercising our right to vote. 

But she didn’t face the camera alone. 

She was joined by Nicole Neily, a longtime advocate and president of Defending Education. It was Neily’s organization that scoured district websites for evidence of gender plans — what they call “parental exclusion policies.” In a letter to Maine Education Commissioner Pender Makin, McMahon gave Defending Education credit for gathering the documents through public records requests and referenced two conservative websites, and , that published the group’s findings. 

“We’re proud to stand with you and President Trump as you ensure that the law is being followed and that the school districts do not infringe on parents’ rights,” Neily said in the video.

Neily offered similar quotes when the Office for Civil Rights opened investigations into school district equity policies in Chicago and Fairfax, Virginia. In February, Defending Education filed about Chicago’s , which aims to increase the number of Black teachers, improve student behavior and make instruction more culturally relevant. Neily argues the initiative denies other students “educational opportunity because of the color of their skin.”

And she gets results.

On May 22, two days after for the Fairfax investigation, OCR launched a probe into admission criteria at the district’s elite Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. Defending Education argues the district discriminates against white and Asian students. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an argument against the policy in February 2024 and turned down a similar case from Boston in December.

An Education Department spokeswoman told ����Ӱ�� that officials welcome support from advocates working to protect parents’ and students’ rights. Neily did not respond to questions about the department’s communications strategy.

But she is just one of several activists working with the department to advance the Trump administration’s education agenda. Since February, at least 10 department press releases announcing investigations have featured quotes from advocates representing eight organizations. They all echo the administration’s position and, like the secretary, stake out conclusions before the OCR team has begun investigating.

In July, McMahon announced an investigation into transgender students playing on girls’ sports teams in Oregon. The probe, the press release said, was prompted by a complaint from the America First Policy Institute — the she chaired for four years before she became secretary.

In the release, Jessica Hart Steinmann, the think tank’s executive general counsel, said, “Thanks to Secretary McMahon’s leadership, this investigation is moving forward as a vital step toward restoring equal opportunity in women’s athletics.”

The organization helped set the agenda for �հ��ܳ���’s return to the White House and the president appointed several of its leaders to . At least six former AFPI staffers work at the Education Department. Craig Trainor, who handled litigation at AFPI, has been serving as acting assistant secretary for civil rights, but was confirmed last week to a top position at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The press releases create “a significant pressure point on educational institutions because they’re presumed to have violated the law from the get-go,” said Jackie Wernz, an attorney who worked in the civil rights office during the Obama and first Trump administrations. The department, she said, “has changed from a neutral arbiter of civil rights disputes to an advocacy organization.”

Those who have worked at the department during both Democratic and Republican administrations, including in �հ��ܳ���’s first term, say such tactics could hinder investigators’ ability to gather evidence fairly. 

When OCR opens investigations, it assures subjects that a complaint is just the beginning of the process and doesn’t mean the department has reached a decision. In from 2020, Kimberly Richey, acting assistant secretary for civil rights during �հ��ܳ���’s first term, promised a school district that OCR would act as a “neutral fact-finder.”

“Historically … on both sides of the aisle, the department has been extremely cautious about making public statements about open investigations,” said Jill Siegelbaum, who spent 20 years in the department’s general counsel’s office before she was let go as part of McMahon’s mass layoffs. By including comments from critics, she said, the department risks immediately putting districts “on the defensive.” 

Richey, who was confirmed last week to once again lead OCR, did not respond to requests for comment.

‘Undeniable’ impact

Administration allies downplayed the significance of the actions, comparing it to former first lady Jill Biden’s decision to host American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and National Education Association President Becky Pringle as the first official when President Joe Biden took office in 2021. A former community college professor, Jill Biden is an NEA member.

Later that same year, parents and advocates in Virginia obtained emails from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing the unions played a decisive role in keeping schools closed during the pandemic. The AFT pushed for language that the CDC ultimately recommended saying the agency could amend its guidance if it detected new variants of the virus. Republicans argue the unions exacerbated declines in students’ learning and mental health. 

“It’s far better for the secretary to engage with Defending Education, which champions parents and students, than with Randi Weingarten’s AFT, a mouthpiece for the Democratic Party’s progressive elite,” said Ginny Gentles, an education and parental rights advocate at the conservative Defense of Freedom Institute. Neily, she added, has had an “undeniable” impact. “Nicki Neily and Defending Education have aggressively challenged the corrupt status quo, amplifying parents’ voices and demanding accountability.”

Catherine Lhamon, who ran OCR during the Obama and Biden administrations, dismissed the comparisons. She likened the warm welcome for the teachers union presidents to a political event. OCR, by contrast, is supposed to be neutral. By opening investigations with accusatory quotations from department officials and their allies, she said, the Trump administration is putting its thumb on the scale. Under Biden, she recalled, investigations frequently led to outcomes that disappointed the advocates who brought them.

“There were lots of cases during my time where the complaints were appalling. Then we’d investigate and find that they weren’t,” she said. “You might think at the beginning of a case you’re going in one direction and then when you investigate, you find you’re going in another. That’s the job of an investigator.”

The actions by the department are among several designed to radically repurpose and drastically downsize a civil rights office that had been focused on “transgender ideology and other progressive causes” and that “muddled the enforcement of laws designed to protect students.” In March, she laid off roughly 250 employees and shuttered seven of 12 regional offices. The moves are still being challenged in court. Over the weekend, after another round of layoffs, one attorney who received notice that she had lost her job said three more offices had been closed.

One former OCR attorney said pairing McMahon’s comments with those from advocates compromises the agency.

“Each administration had their favorite issues and those issues sometimes got priority treatment. But I am unaware of any complainants consistently being put to the head of the line,” said Paul Grossman, who led the San Francisco OCR office for 30 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations. 

Under previous administrations, it wasn’t unusual for the department to consult studies from advocates or think tanks and use their data to make a point, he said. “But individual leaders were not treated like or publicized as celebrities.”

Wernz, who now advises districts and colleges, said the Biden administration may have planted the seeds of the current practice. In some cases, the department under the previous regime issued statements after districts agreed to change policies and practices, but before OCR had completed a full investigation. In her view, some of those press releases were  

“The Biden administration kind of opened the door like a crack to do this,” Wernz said. “And the Trump administration has just kicked the door down.”

A majority of the department’s press releases about OCR work highlight Trump administration priorities, like focusing Title IX on biological sex and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Many of them include supporting quotes from like-minded advocates, including:

• , executive director of the conservative Southeastern Legal Foundation. She represents drama teacher Stacy Deemar, who filed a complaint against the Evanston-Skokie district in Illinois in 2019. The district, she alleged, racially discriminates against white students and staff through racial affinity groups, training sessions focused on race and “privilege walks.” In the , participants take a step forward or backward based on issues like whether they learned about their own culture in school, have two parents with college degrees or grew up in a poor neighborhood. 
  
  Under former Secretary Miguel Cardona, the department dismissed the complaint. 
  
  “Dr. Deemar has waited patiently for the harms inflicted by the Biden Administration to be rectified,” Hermann said in the release. “For the sake of our children and our country, the time to restore equality and reclaim civil liberties is now.” Deemar previously sued the district in federal court, but a the case last year, ruling that the teacher didn’t experience a hostile environment.

• , executive director of the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism, which opposes “identity-based practices.” she was “thrilled” that OCR opened an investigation into the Tumwater School District in Washington state. The organization complained on behalf of a 15-year-old female basketball player who refused to participate in a game against an opposing team with a transgender player. The Tumwater district, according to the complaint, also investigated the student for bullying and harassment because she spoke out against the student playing. 

• , vice president of the Native American Guardians Association. The North Dakota-based organization opposes New York’s ban on Native American mascots in sports. The group, along with President Trump and McMahon, took the side of Massapequa High School in its dispute with the state over using the name Chiefs. McMahon has since referred the complaint to the Department of Justice. “We call on federal and state leaders to help us defend these dwindling expressions of our presence and contributions,” Black Cloud said in the department’s press release. 

Julie Hartman, a department spokeswoman, defended the inclusion of advocates in press statements. She said the agency “welcomes support from — and has often worked with — outside groups who want to advocate for students and families and help those who believe that their civil rights have been violated.”

The department, she said, has a “responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not sponsoring practices that violate” federal laws. According to department records, OCR investigated complaints from multiple advocacy organizations under former Secretary Cardona, including Defending Education. 

Under Biden, OCR opened a dozen based on Defending Education’s complaints.

In one 2023 case, the group complained that the Ashland, Oregon, school district offered exclusive, race-based affinity groups for students. When the Office for Civil Rights looked into , the district that the groups are open to all students and OCR closed the case. 

Advocates frequently issue their own press releases about complaints they want OCR to resolve. Some don’t see a problem with McMahon featuring them in official statements as well and say it’s a matter of transparency. 

“These groups often have expertise in specific areas and connections to affected communities that help them spot problems government agencies might miss,” said Harris, with the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism.

Quoting advocates “can foster trust by humanizing issues,” said Black Cloud. 

‘What letter?’

In some cases, the advocates commenting are more clued into where an investigation is headed than districts and even OCR itself. 

In one example, the department in March notified the Deerfield Public Schools, north of Chicago, that it was the subject of a probe over complaints about transgender athletes using girls’ locker rooms. The letter came the same day OCR officials issued , said Cathy Kedjidjian, the district’s chief communications officer. The government’s investigation also targets the Illinois Department of Education and the Chicago Public Schools.

“We didn’t know the investigation was coming,” she said.

In the release, Robert Eitel, president and co-founder of the Defense of Freedom Institute, thanked the department for taking steps to ensure “the bad actors comply with Title IX.” 

Deerfield officials, Kedjidjian said, have since “responded in full” to OCR’s questions. In an to the community, the district denied allegations that middle school girls had to change in a locker room with a trans girl present.

Jim Blew, who worked at the department during the first Trump administration and now leads the think tank with Eitel, said they “won’t be commenting for this story.”

Another announcement caught OCR’s attorneys off guard. On , a release stated that the department sent letters to 60 colleges and universities warning them to protect Jewish students on campus during antisemitic protests. 

“We found out from the same press release that you all did,” the attorney who was laid off over the weekend told ����Ӱ��. She asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. When the letters went out, she said OCR attorneys received “confused and angry emails [from universities], like ‘What’s this letter?’ And we go, ‘What letter?’ ”

Actions like that, she said, can damage the “trust and goodwill” that investigators work to create with K-12 and higher education officials. 

“We’re the ones doing the face-to-face with the recipients [of those letters],” she said. With the closure of 10 regional OCR offices, as part of the administration’s plan to eliminate the agency, the staff is trying to reassure districts and give them “a sense that ‘We are still neutral, we will handle this case.’ ”

It’s been about six months since the U.S. Department of Education sent a “” letter to all schools that receive federal funding, warning them that they could risk losing this money if they promote what the department calls “pervasive and repugnant” racial preferences.

As is typical, adults demonstrate far more positive attitudes toward the local schools in their own backyards, with over 40% grading them highly. 

Even so, the results may help explain rising support among parents for private school choice. With 12 states now offering universal education savings accounts or tax credits that can be used for tuition or homeschooling, nearly 60% of parents say they would choose a private or religious school for their child if they were offered public funds. That’s up from 56% in 2020. 

The poll figures offer further evidence of a post-pandemic shift toward alternatives to traditional public schools. In Florida, a majority of K-12 students now use , from district magnet programs to homeschooling with state funds. 

“COVID was a key factor in making people more open to choice,” said Douglas Harris, an economics professor at Tulane University and the director of the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice. He noted that frequent disparagement from Republicans, led by President Donald Trump, have contributed to the public’s souring mood.

“It wasn’t until COVID that he started to really attack public schools, and saw the power of pulling that into his larger culture war,“ Harris said. “Is the message sinking in? No doubt. When politicians relentlessly bash any institution, support for that institution goes down.”

He cautioned against reading too much into the low percentage of Americans giving public schools high marks. Many of the 1,000 poll respondents may not have kids in school. While the average voter might be influenced by politics, public school parents answer questions based on their experiences, he said.

The poll from PDK International, a professional organization for educators, comes as the Trump administration pushes to dramatically reduce the federal government’s role in schools while also pressuring them to drop equity-focused programs. Responses show that Americans agree with the president in some areas, but reject other pieces of his agenda.

Closing the Education Department

Two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose eliminating the Education Department and say such a move would negatively affect students. Support for keeping the agency intact is highest among Democrats, but at least a third of Republicans agree it should stay open. Closing the department is far more popular among men (34% in favor) than women (9%). 

Marc Porter Magee, CEO of 50CAN, a national education advocacy group, said that Americans “just aren’t super inclined” to get rid of programs.

“There is a certain ‘more is better’ kind of a vibe,” he said. Even among parents who opt to put their children in private school, many recognize the federal government’s role in holding states accountable for serving students with the greatest needs. “Protecting kids with disabilities probably polls quite well.”

Along with downsizing the department, which has shrunk to roughly half the size it was when Trump took office, the administration has taken aggressive steps to get schools and universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Efforts to force schools to comply with anti-DEI orders are still tied up in court, but Trump recently claimed victory. 

“The beautiful thing is, as you know, we’ve gotten rid of the woke. Woke is gone,” last month. “I think pretty well buried. We’re gonna make sure it’s buried.” 

But that’s not necessarily what Americans want. Over 60% of PDK’s respondents say DEI is important, but there’s a partisan divide. Eighty-nine percent of Democrats support such initiatives, compared with 62% of independents and 22% of Republicans. 

Opponents of equity-related efforts, like , president of the conservative Defending Education group, say some schools have rebranded their DEI efforts to emphasize “belonging.” That term has nearly unanimous support from poll respondents. Ninety-eight percent consider initiatives that make students feel welcome at school to be important or very important — second only to keeping students and teachers safe, at 99%.

Over 90% of Americans say boosting teacher pay should be a high priority, and nearly two-thirds agreed that educators’ salaries are too low. It’s a more pressing issue for Democrats, like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who last month that would set annual teacher pay at a minimum of $60,000. Among Republicans, more than a third, 39%, agreed that teachers don’t earn enough.

Support for AI in schools drops

While it ranks lower than other topics, educating students about artificial intelligence and responsible social media use is a top concern for 84% of adults. The Education Department recently issued brief on AI integration, saying that grant funds can be used for tools that personalize learning, supplement tutoring and help students make post-secondary plans. 

Teachers and students are inundated almost daily with AI tools, like ChatGPT’s new “study mode,” meant to help students solve problems “step by step,” rather than just giving them the answer. Khan Academy offers an AI tutor, and research shows some AI tutoring offers promising results.

But Americans’ enthusiasm about AI’s potential in education has dropped since last year. Less than half of respondents support or strongly support teachers using AI to create lesson plans, down from 62% in 2024. Thirty-eight percent of adults think it’s fine for students to use AI to complete their homework, a drop from 43% last year.

Kyla Johnson-Trammell, who recently stepped down after eight years leading the Oakland Unified School District in California, said she’s not surprised about Americans’ deepening skepticism.

“At the end of the day, learning happens when kids have a relationship with the teacher and when they’re engaged in human connection,” she said. But she also sees value in using AI tools to solve specific dilemmas. A teacher might grade 30 essays, but can then use AI to “look for trends across all those papers, like ‘a majority of your students need help being able to write a clear thesis,’ ” she said. “Technology can do that.”

Most educators who try AI don’t stick with a tool more than seven days during a three-month period, according to an by Stanford University’s Generative AI Education Hub. The report, based on data from 9,000 teachers, showed that the 40% who become regular users lean toward teacher-focused chatbots rather than AI assistance for students.

The of AI for educational purposes comes as more states enact policies to ban cellphone use during the school day. have restrictions in place, and while it focuses on college freshman, a finds increases in academic performance once a ban is enforced.

The public largely supports such policies, the poll found. Forty percent agreed with a full-day ban, while 46% said students should only be able to use their phones during lunch and class breaks. 

Some experts are frustrated by the apparent contradiction. 

“This is what I find so completely surreal about the current moment,” Benjamin Riley, who writes about learning and generative AI, last month. “We can’t even say smartphones are being ‘memory holed’ because the bans in schools are happening quite literally at the same time as various ed-tech hucksters are falling all over themselves to push AI into the classroom. Wake up!”

Porter Magee said he worries about the “downstream” effects of devices on student habits, including trouble focusing and a continued . 

“It feels like we’re swimming against a tough tide,” he said.

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed Education Secretary Linda McMahon to move ahead with firing more than 1,300 employees at the U.S. Department of Education as the Trump administration aims to eliminate the federal agency. 

While the states that sued and the government’s lawyers will continue to argue the case in the lower courts, McMahon said the opinion shows that the president “has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization and day-to-day operations of federal agencies.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, dissented with the ruling.

“As Congress mandated, the department plays a vital role in this nation’s education system, safeguarding equal access to learning and channeling billions of dollars to schools and students across the country each year,” Sotomayor wrote. “When the executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it.”

When a white teacher at Decatur High School used the , students walked out and marched in protest. But Reyes Le wanted to do more.

Until he graduated from the Atlanta-area school this year, he co-led its equity team. He organized walking tours devoted to Decatur’s history as a thriving community of freed slaves after the Civil War. Stops included a statue of civil rights leader , which replaced a Confederate monument, and a historical marker recognizing the site where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was for driving with an out-of-state license.

But Le feared his efforts would collapse in the face of the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion. An existing state law against “divisive concepts” meant students already had to get parent permission to go on the tour. Then the district threw out two non-discrimination policies April 15. 

“I felt that the work we were doing wouldn’t be approved going into the future,” Le said.

Decatur got snared by the U.S. Department of Education’s to pull millions of dollars in federal funding from states and districts that employed DEI policies. In response, several organizations sued the department, calling its guidance vague and in violation of constitutional provisions that favor local control. Within weeks, three federal judges, including one Trump appointee, Education Secretary Linda McMahon from enforcing the directives, and Decatur promptly .

The reversal offers a glimpse into the courts’ role in thwarting — or at least slowing down — the Trump education juggernaut. States, districts, unions, civil rights groups and parents sued McMahon, and multiple courts the department skirted the law in slashing funding and staff. But some observers say the administration is playing a long game and may view such losses as temporary setbacks.

“The administration’s plan is to push on multiple fronts to test the boundaries of what they can get away with,” said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. “Cut personnel, but if needed, add them back later. What’s gained? Possible intimidation of ‘deep state’ employees and a chance to hire people that will be ‘a better fit.’ ”

A recent example of boundary testing: The administration nearly $7 billion for education the president already approved in March.

But the move is practically lifted from the pages of , the right-wing blueprint for �հ��ܳ���’s second term. In that document, Russ Vought, now �հ��ܳ���’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, argues that presidents must “handcuff the bureaucracy” and that the Constitution for the White House to spend everything Congress appropriated.  

The administration blames Democrats for playing the courts. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller “radical rogue judges” of getting in the president’s way. 

The end result is often administrative chaos, leaving many districts unable to make routine purchases and displaced staff unsure whether to move on with their lives. 

While the outcome in the lower courts has been mixed, the Supreme Court — which has on much of �հ��ܳ���’s agenda — is expected any day to weigh in on the president’s biggest prize: whether McMahon can permanently cut half the department’s staff. 

In that case, 21 Democratic attorneys general and coalition of districts and unions sued to prevent the administration from taking a giant step toward eliminating the department.

“Everything about defunding and dismantling by the administration is in judicial limbo,” said Neal McCluskey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. As a supporter of eliminating the department, he lamented the “If the Supreme Court allows mass layoffs, though, I would expect more energy to return to shrinking the department.”

The odds of that increased last week when the that mass firings at other agencies could remain in effect as the parties argue the case in the lower courts.

While the lawsuits over the Education Department are separate, Johnathan Smith, chief of staff and general counsel at the National Center for Youth Law, said the ruling is “clearly not a good sign.” His case, filed in May, focuses on cuts specifically to the department’s Office for Civil Rights, but the argument is essentially the same: The administration overstepped its authority when it gutted the department without congressional approval.

Solicitor General John Sauer, in to the Supreme Court, said the states had no grounds to sue and called any fears the department couldn’t make do with a smaller staff merely “speculative.”

Even if the Supreme Court rules in McMahon’s favor, its opinion won’t affect previous rulings and other lawsuits in progress against the department.

Here’s where some of those key legal battles stand:

COVID relief funds

McMahon stunned states in late March when she said they would no longer receive more than $2 billion in reimbursements for COVID-related expenses. States would have to make a fresh case for how their costs related to the pandemic, even though the department had already approved extensions for construction projects, summer learning and tutoring. 

On June 3, a federal judge in Maryland from pulling the funds.

Despite the judicial order, not all states have been paid.

The Maryland Department of Education still had more than $400 million to spend. Cherie Duvall-Jones, a spokeswoman, said the agency hasn’t received any reimbursements even though it provided the “necessary documentation and information” federal officials requested. 

The cancellation forced Baltimore City schools to dip into a to avoid disrupting tutoring and summer school programs.

Madison Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the department, declined to comment on why it had yet to pay Maryland or how much the department has distributed to other states since June.

Mass firings

In the administration’s push to wind down the department, McMahon admits she still needs staff to complete what she calls her “final mission.” On May 21, she told a House appropriations subcommittee that she had rehired 74 people. Biedermann wouldn’t say whether that figure has grown, and referred a reporter to the .

“You hope that you’re just cutting fat,” McMahon testified. “Sometimes you cut a little in the muscle.” 

The next day, a federal district court her to also reinstate the more than 1,300 employees she fired in March, about half of the department’s workforce. Updating the court on progress, Chief of Staff Rachel Oglesby said in a that she’s still reviewing survey responses from laid off staffers and figuring out where they would work if they return.

But some call the department’s to bring back employees lackluster, perhaps because it’s pinning its hopes on a victory before the Supreme Court. 

“This is a court that’s been fairly aggressive in overturning lower court decisions,” said Smith, with the National Center for Youth Law. 

His group’s lawsuit is one of two challenging cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, which lost nearly 250 staffers and seven regional offices. They argue the cuts have left the department unable to thoroughly investigate complaints. Of the 5,164 civil rights complaints since March, OCR has dismissed 3,625, Oglesby .

In a case brought by the Victim Rights Law Center, a Massachusetts-based advocacy organization, a federal district court McMahon to reinstate OCR employees. 

Even if the case is not reversed on appeal, there’s another potential problem: Not all former staffers are eager to return.

“I have applied for other jobs, but I’d prefer to have certainty about my employment with OCR before making a transition,” said Andy Artz, who was a supervising attorney in OCR’s New York City office until the layoffs. “I feel committed to the mission of the agency and I’d like to be part of maintaining it if reinstated.”

DEI

An aspect of that mission, nurtured under the Biden administration, was to discourage discipline policies that result in higher suspension and expulsion rates for minority students. A warned that discrimination in discipline could have “devastating long-term consequences on students and their future opportunities.”

But according to the department’s , efforts to reduce those gaps or raise achievement among Black and Hispanic students could fall under its definition of “impermissible” DEI practices. Officials demanded that states sign a form certifying compliance with their interpretation of the law. On April 24, three federal courts ruled that for now, the department can’t pull funding from states that didn’t sign. The department also had to temporarily shut down a website designed to gather public complaints about DEI practices. 

The cases, which McMahon has asked the courts to dismiss, will continue through the summer. In court records, the administration’s lawyers say the groups’ arguments are weak and that districts like Decatur simply overreacted. In an example cited in a complaint brought by the NAACP, the Waterloo Community School District in Iowa responded to the federal guidance by of a statewide “read-In” for Black History Month. About 3,500 first graders were expected to participate in the virtual event featuring Black authors and illustrators. 

The department said the move reflected a misunderstanding of the guidance. “Withdrawing all its students from the read-In event appears to have been a drastic overreaction by the school district and disconnected from a plain reading of the … documents,” the department said.

Desegregation 

The administration’s DEI crackdown has left many schools confused about how to teach seminal issues of American history such as the Civil Rights era.

It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that established “desegregation centers” across the country to help districts implement court-ordered integration. 

In 2022, the Biden administration awarded $33 million in grants to what are now called equity assistance centers. But �հ��ܳ���’s department views such work as inseparable from DEI. When it cancelled funding to the centers, it described them as “woke” and “divisive.”

Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Clinton appointee, disagreed. He blocked McMahon from pulling roughly $4 million from the Southern Education Foundation, which houses Equity Assistance Center-South and helped finance Brown v. Board of Education over 70 years ago. His order referenced President Dwight Eisenhower and southern judges who took the ruling seriously.

“They could hardly have imagined that some future presidential administration would hinder efforts by organizations like SEF — based on some misguided understanding of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ — to fulfill Brown’s constitutional promise to students across the country to eradicate the practice of racial segregation.”

He said the center is likely to win its argument that canceling the grant was “arbitrary and capricious.”

Raymond Pierce, Southern Education Foundation president and CEO, said when he applied for the grant to run one of the centers, he emphasized its historical significance.

“My family is from Mississippi, so I remember seeing a ‘colored’ entrance sign on the back of the building as we pulled into my mother’s hometown for the holidays,” Pierce said. 

�հ��ܳ���’s Justice Department many of the remaining 130 desegregation orders across the South. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, has said the orders force districts to spend money on monitoring and data collection and that it’s time to “let people off the hook” for past discrimination.

But Eshé Collins, director of Equity Assistance Center-South, said the centers are vital because their services are free to districts.

“Some of these cases haven’t had any movement,” she said. “Districts are like ‘Well, we can’t afford to do this work.’ That’s why the equity assistance center is so key.”

Her center, for example, works with the in Tennessee to recruit more Black teachers and ensure minority students get an equal chance to enroll in advanced classes. The system is still under a desegregation order from 1965, but is on track to meet the terms set by the court next year, Collins said. A week after Friedman issued the injunction in the foundation’s case, Ruth Ryder, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for policy and programs, told Collins she could once again access funds and her work resumed.

Research

As they entered the Department of Education in early February, one of the first moves made by staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency was to terminate nearly $900 million in research contracts awarded through the Institute for Education Sciences. Three lawsuits say the cuts seriously hinder efforts to conduct high-quality research on schools and students.

Kevin Gee from the University of California, Davis, was among those hit. He was in the middle of producing a practice guide for the nation on chronic absenteeism, which continues to exceed pre-pandemic levels in all states. In a , the American Enterprise Institute’s Nat Malkus said the pandemic “took this crisis to unprecedented levels” that “warrant urgent and sustained attention.” Last year’s rate stood at nearly 24% nationally — still well above the 15% before the pandemic.

Gee was eager to fully grasp the impact of the pandemic on K-3 students. Even though young children didn’t experience school closures, many missed out on preschool and have in social and academic skills.

Westat, the contractor for the project, employed 350 staffers to collect data from more than 860 schools and conduct interviews with children about their experiences. But DOGE halted the midstream — after the department had already invested about $44 million of a $100 million contract.

“The data would’ve helped us understand, for the first time, the educational well-being of our nation’s earliest learners on a nationwide scale in the aftermath of the pandemic,” he said. 

The department has no plans to resurrect the project, according to a June . But there are other signs it is walking back some of DOGE’s original cuts. For example, it intends to reissue contracts for regional education labs, which work with districts and states on school improvement. 

“It feels like the legal pressure has succeeded, in the sense that the Department of Education is starting up some of this stuff again,” said Cara Jackson, a past president of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, which filed one of the lawsuits. “I think … there’s somebody at the department who is going through the legislation and saying, ‘Oh, we actually do need to do this.’ ”

Mental health grants 

Amid the legal machinations, even some Republicans are losing patience with McMahon’s moves to freeze spending Congress already appropriated.  

In April, she terminated $1 billion in mental health grants approved as part of a 2022 law that followed the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The department told grantees, without elaboration, that the funding no longer aligns with the administration’s policy of “prioritizing merit, fairness and excellence in education” and undermines “the students these programs are intended to help.”

The secretary told Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in June that she would the grants, but some schools don’t want to wait. Silver Consolidated Schools in New Mexico, which lost $6 million when the grant was discontinued, sued her on June 20th. Sixteen Democrat-led states filed a second later that month.

The funds, according to , allowed it to hire seven mental health professionals and contract with two outside counseling organizations. With the extra resources, the district saw bullying reports decline by 30% and suspensions drop by a third, according to the district’s complaint. Almost 500 students used a mental health app funded by the grant.

A judge has yet to rule in either case, but Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and other members of a bipartisan task force are that she’ll open a new competition for the funds. 

“These funds were never intended to be a theoretical exercise — they were designed to confront an urgent crisis affecting millions of children,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement. “With youth mental health challenges at an all-time high, any disruption or diversion of resources threatens to reverse hard-won progress and leave communities without critical supports.”

was originally reported by Nadra Nittle and Mariel Padilla of .

When the U.S. Naval Academy tied to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) from its library, retired Commander William Marks saw more than censorship — he saw a threat to the Navy’s future. But last week, after immense public outcry, most of those books returned to Nimitz Library shelves.

“Do you believe it?” asked Marks, a 1996 alum who spearheaded a campaign to maintain student access to the books. “What great news. We’re thrilled.”

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

All the books the academy removed in early April had one thing in common: Officials flagged them for DEI themes. They include Maya Angelou’s “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings,” Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” and Elizabeth Reis’ “Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex.” The purge followed directives from Trump-appointed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has called DEI initiatives “divisive.”

Determined to ensure that students could still read the works, Marks began on April 5.

“The motto of the Naval Academy is ‘from knowledge, seapower,’” said Marks, who served as a Navy commander for 22 years. “What we mean is without knowledge, education and intellectual growth, we will never become a strong Navy. So this contradiction really struck me, that instead of encouraging knowledge and encouraging discussion, the Pentagon was actually suppressing knowledge and limiting discussion.”

About 4,400 students, members of the Brigade of Midshipmen, attend the Naval Academy while on active duty in the U.S. Navy. After graduation, they are required to serve in the Navy or Marine Corps for at least five years. Women represent more than a quarter of the student body, while men make up over 70 percent of midshipmen.

Initially, Marks hoped to fundraise $3,810, which he figured would be enough to cover the cost of the books pulled from Nimitz Library. Since Marks lives in Arlington, Texas, he tapped Old Fox Books & Coffeehouse in Annapolis, Maryland, home to the academy, to be his local partner.

Donations have far exceeded his goal, topping $70,000.

Jinny Amundson, an owner of Old Fox Books, said by the time she got the call from Marks, she had already heard about the books removed and had started compiling a list of them to purchase for the store’s inventory.

“For a bookseller, the idea of censoring any kind of books just gives us heart palpitations,” Amundson said. “And it’s our community. The [midshipmen] think of our shop as a place that they love and one of their sort of unofficial bookstores. We have the mids, the faculty, the administration that come in and think of our space as their own.”

Amundson said she understood that the removal of books was an order, which has to be followed within the military. But she found the loophole: Her bookshop could store the titles targeted. It is conveniently located about a block away from the Naval Academy gates.

The day before the institution’s May 23 graduation, Amundson learned that most of the pulled books were back on the library’s shelves. She went to see for herself, took pictures of the books and sent them to many of the authors, who had personally contacted her when the restrictions on the works took effect.

Now, just 20 books are being sequestered pending a formal compliance review, according to the Department of Defense. A Navy spokesperson did not provide details to The 19th about those titles. Ultimately, a narrowing of the search terms used to flag books for review resulted in the return of hundreds of books to the Nimitz Library, as the Department of Defense first issued broad guidance about book removals to the military services.

“What struck me was the very arbitrary and even cruel nature of the books that got removed,” Marks said. “These books were a cross-section of American culture. They were important to the discussion of American history.”

In an updated May 9 memo, the Pentagon instructed the military services to use 20 search terms to pinpoint books in their academic libraries that might need to be set aside because of how they engage race or gender. Among those terms were affirmative action; critical race theory; gender-affirming care; transgender people; and diversity, equity and inclusion.

People across the political spectrum expressed alarm about the book restrictions, which have been widely opposed, according to Marks. “We really shouldn’t be banning any books,” he said. That includes those with unpopular, or even offensive, ideas like Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” which managed to evade the Naval Academy’s book purge, he noted.

He calls his effort to maintain the midshipmen’s access to all books in the Nimitz Library , after the 1969 Angelou memoir that was likely targeted because it describes racial segregation and child abuse.

The name Operation Caged Bird also alludes to the feeling of being restrained by censorship. “I almost felt like I could feel the bars closing in on me in terms of what I can read and can’t read,” Marks said. “That didn’t sit right.”

Marks’ GoFundMe campaign has raised enough money to supply 1,000 books in 2025 and fund a three-year initiative at Old Fox, ensuring midshipmen can access any contested title for free.

“If you’re a midshipman and you’re writing an essay paper and there’s a book you can’t find, maybe it’s been removed or banned, you can call them, and they’ll order it for you, and then you just pick it up free of charge,” Marks said. He’s also coordinating with other service academies, anticipating similar battles.

At the Navy’s three other educational institutions, fewer than 20 books have been flagged as potentially incompatible with the military’s mission, as have a few dozen at the Air Force Academy and other Air Force academic institutions. The Army has also been ordered to assess library books at its educational institutions, but a spokesperson from West Point told The 19th that no books have been pulled at this time, as its compliance review is still underway.

The return of nearly 400 books to the Naval Academy library coincides with a pending of violating K-12 students’ constitutional rights for limiting books and subject matter related to gender, race and sexuality. The American Civil Liberties Union filed E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of 12 students. A hearing will . The ACLU seeks a preliminary injunction to give the youth access to materials it argues have been restricted to align with President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s executive orders and political agenda.

Amundson said she was pleasantly surprised that it took just weeks for the books to be returned to the Naval Academy.

“I believe that what happened and the response that was given in Annapolis — I think that made the administration be much more careful this time around as they’re going for these other libraries, the other Department of Defense libraries around the world,” she said.

Amundson said using the funds raised from the GoFundMe campaign, the bookstore was able to give away nearly 500 books in the days leading up to the�� Naval Academy graduation. For weeks, letters of support piled up and people stopped by the bookstore with gratitude, some even driving from hours away to show their support in person.

In addition to Operation Caged Bird, Amundson said there were “powerful arms at work.” There was pushback on the book removals from members of Congress, the Naval Academy’s Board of Visitors and the superintendent — who wrote an open letter signed by hundreds of alumni.

“For right now, this was a huge win for us,” Amundson said.

The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights that the district’s Black Student Success Plan violates federal law because it discriminates against students on the basis of race.��

The , released in February, outlines strategies over the next five years to improve Black student’s daily learning experiences and life outcomes. 

Stacy Davis Gates, Chicago Teachers Union president, said in a Tuesday that the plan was developed to address the “man-made educational achievement gap” for Black students caused by inequitable policies such as redlining.

“We expect CPS to stand up against this baseless investigation — and we call on our city and state leaders to take real action to protect our students and schools,” Davis Gates said.

An Illinois law signed in 2023 required the Chicago Board of Education to create a and develop a plan to “bring about academic parity between Black children and their peers.” 

The plan was based on the , which include providing comprehensive resources for Black students’ academic and social-emotional needs and partnering with historically Black colleges and universities to create a teacher pipeline. 

The plan’s main goals include doubling the number of Black male educators, reducing out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for Black students by 40% and increasing Black history and culture in classrooms.

The investigation into the plan is based on a by conservative Virginia-based advocate Defending Education, which targeted a similar program last year in the Los Angeles Unified School District called the Black Student Achievement Plan. A district spokesperson said Thursday that Los Angeles Unified resolved the complaint by opening the plan’s services to all students.

The Education Department said in a press release Tuesday that the Chicago plan violates federal law by focusing “on remedial measures only for Black students, despite acknowledging that Chicago students of all races struggle academically.” It’s the latest move by the Trump administration to eliminate school diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

Craig Trainor, the department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a that the administration won’t allow federal funds to be used “in this pernicious and unlawful manner.”

The department previously said government funds were at risk for states and school districts that didn’t to end DEI programs. Last month, federal judges blocked the department from withholding federal funds because of DEI.

A Chicago Public Schools spokesperson said Thursday that the district will not comment on pending or ongoing investigations.

The latest casualty in President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion is a $1 billion federal grant program to train school counselors and thwart mass shootings.

The U.S. Department of Education notified grant recipients this week it was ending funds to train and hire K-12 school mental health professionals included in a 2022 law that passed with bipartisan support following the mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, which led to the deaths of 19 elementary school students and two teachers. 

The grants, which were included in a bipartisan gun control law approved by then-President Joe Biden, don’t align with the Trump administration’s goals, according to sent to grant recipients Tuesday evening and obtained by ����Ӱ��. Grantees include local school districts, state education agencies and colleges tasked with training some 14,000 mental health professionals and placing them in K-12 schools in virtually every state. 

“Those receiving these notices reflect the prior Administration’s priorities and policy preferences and conflict with those of the current administration,” Murray Bessette, a senior advisor in the Education Department’s Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, wrote in the letter. Affected programs, Bessette wrote, “violate the letter or purpose” of federal civil rights laws, run counter to the department’s priority on “excellence in education” and “undermine the well-being of the students these programs are intended to help.”

Proponents of the grant program said they were caught off guard by the move, especially since , have attributed the unprecedented surge in school shootings to a student mental health crisis.

“Ending these mental health investments will hurt students and families and make our schools less safe,” Mary Wall, who was the Education Department’s deputy assistant secretary for P-12 education during the Biden administration, told ����Ӱ��. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that mental health supports save lives.”

An Education Department spokesperson confirmed it would not renew $1 billion in grants, a move that appears to impact the entirety of the largest-ever federal effort to train school mental health professionals included in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The law also created the first significant federal gun control measures in decades, including background checks on firearm purchases for anyone younger than 21 years old. 

Spokesperson Madi Biedermann said in a statement the grants didn’t live up to their goal of improving schools’ mental health support services — and suggested the cuts were part of a broader Trump administration effort to derail programs that support diversity, equity and inclusion in education. 

“Under the deeply flawed priorities of the Biden Administration, grant recipients used the funding to implement race-based actions like recruiting quotas in ways that have nothing to do with mental health and could hurt the very students the grants are supposed to help,” Biedermann said. 

Biedermann’s statement echoed by conservative pundit Christoper Rufo, who turned to X this week to accuse the Biden administration of using the grants “to advance left-wing racialism and discrimination.” 

“No more slush fund for activists under the guise of mental health,” wrote Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. Rufo didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment from ����Ӱ��. 

Wall said the Education Department during the Biden administration “offered a voluntary competitive priority” to applicants who worked to ensure mental health professionals reflected the school communities they serve, but rejected the idea that the grants were a DEI initiative. Instead of creating a plan to support students’ well-being, she said the Trump administration has sought to “rob school districts who have made important groundwork to have clinical services available to children and interrupt them midstream.”

“We in no way required any of this to be focused on race or gender or sexuality or anything,” Wall said. “We were deliberately looking to set these up to be long-lasting, high-impact programs, where we would get the maximum amount of benefit.”

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut who introduced the 2022 law, accused the Trump administration Thursday of killing the grant program “in order to fund a giant tax cut for the crazy wealthy.”

“I thought we had a bipartisan consensus around trying to support kids with really serious traumas and mental illnesses with support services in our schools,” Murphy said in a statement to ����Ӱ��. “But there’s not consensus on anything that helps people in this administration.”

Lauren Levin, the chief advocacy officer at the nonprofit Sandy Hook Promise, said the cuts hinder students’ access to those services in schools that are already under-resourced. Though the has been long debated, student rates of depression, anxiety and loneliness. 

Nationally, there is an average of about , significantly lower than the 250-to-1 recommended by the American School Counselor Association. School psychologists are , with a national average of 1 for every 1,127 K-12 students, according to the American Psychological Association.  

“After school shootings, we hear a lot of important conversations about the mental health needs and gaps in this country for youth,” including from Republican lawmakers, Levin told ����Ӱ��. “In many of these cases with these grants, it means children who are currently receiving mental health services in schools are going to stop getting that help.”

In the first few months of the Trump administration, several federal initiatives designed to prevent mass school shootings have faced a similar fate. A 26-person committee of violence prevention experts — also approved as part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Axe — was gutted. 

Levin said Sandy Hook Promise, founded after the 2012 mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, has also begun to track cuts to grants authorized under the federal Trump approved that law in 2018 in response to the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida, which resulted in the deaths of 17 people. So far, Levin said they’ve documented cuts to about a dozen grant recipients totaling nearly $20 million, including funding designed to help schools address social isolation among students and prevent bullying.  

“One of the reasons that students or any of these shooters are not getting the help that they need is that we have a gap in access to mental health care,” said Levin, who noted that schools are among the most consistent places for young people to get help. 

“If someone is showing signs of wanting to hurt themselves or others, if they are socially isolated, if we see changes in behavior and if there is a school counselor, that school can be their lifeline,” Levin said. “That could make all the difference.” 

Adding to the legal challenges over the U.S. Department of Education’s efforts to rid schools of DEI, 19 Democrat-led states sued Friday over an April 3 “dear colleague” letter.  

The threat to withhold funding if states don’t sign what the complaint calls “a novel and unlawful certification” would be “catastrophic for plaintiff states’ students from kindergarten through high school,” the attorneys general wrote.

Collectively, the Democrat-led states stand to lose almost $14 billion, including Title I money for low-income schools and funds for students with disabilities. The complaint asks a federal district court in Massachusetts to declare the April 3 letter unlawful and prevent the department from taking any action based on its interpretation of anti-discrimination laws and the Supreme Court decision that ended racial preferences in college admissions.

States and school districts resisting a U.S. Department of Education ultimatum regarding diversity, equity and inclusion got a temporary reprieve Thursday. Two federal judges — one in and another in the — blocked the department’s ability to withhold federal funding from those that didn’t to its interpretation of non-discrimination laws or agree to end what officials called “impermissible” DEI programs.

A third judge in suspended for now a Feb. 14 “” letter warning districts against racial diversity efforts. The deadline to sign a form certifying compliance was Thursday.

States and districts are “no longer under the immediate threat” of losing funds if they “continue to offer long-standing lawful programs or don’t sign” the form, said Katrina Feldkamp, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund. Representing the NAACP, the law firm is among several groups, including unions, school districts and advocacy groups, involved in three separate lawsuits over the department’s anti-DEI guidance. 

In a statement, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers — part of the Maryland case — called the court’s ruling “a huge win for students, families and educators.” 

The department’s follow-up on Feb. 28 appeared to soften officials’ stance on practices it considers illegal, saying cultural and historical observances were acceptable as long as all students were welcome to participate. But the certification requirement took a firm tone, cautioning states that they could face substantial financial penalties if they sign it and are then found to be in violation. 

“The court finds that threatening penalties under those legal provisions without sufficiently defining the conduct that might trigger liability violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on vagueness,” Judge Dabney Friedrich of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, said in her oral ruling granting a preliminary injunction. The department’s documents, she said, “placed a particular emphasis on certain DEI practices without providing an actual definition of what constitutes DEI or DEI practice.”

At the time of publication 12 states, including Arizona, Arkansas and Montana, and the District of Columbia, had signed the certification. Twenty-two, including California, Michigan and New Mexico, declined to sign, and 17 either hadn’t announced their decision or did not respond to calls or emails from ����Ӱ��. Madi Biedermann, spokeswoman for the Education Department, said she didn’t know if officials would share the full count of states complying. She didn’t respond to a request for comment on the court rulings. 

Signing the form indicates compliance with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin, as well as the department’s view of a 2023 Supreme Court ruling against racial preferences in higher education admissions. 

State chiefs who didn’t sign argued that the Education Department didn’t clearly define DEI and ignored proper procedures for collecting such information. Overall, the documents have left leaders bewildered over whether they stand to lose millions in federal funds. In Denver Public Schools, for example, roughly $36 million in Title I funds for high-poverty schools and another $20 million for special education services are at stake. Like state chiefs in several other blue states, Colorado’s Susana Córdova to sign the document. 

“I think all districts across the country are forced to grapple with this question of ‘What would you do without it?’ ” said Chuck Carpenter, chief financial officer.

Title I funds in his district, Colorado’s largest, cover salaries for school social workers, help to reduce class sizes and support interventions for students who are behind academically. 

“These are very much on-the-ground expenses,” he said. “This doesn’t get caught up in the bureaucracy. This is for real kids and real people.”

Several GOP state chiefs welcomed the department’s message. Arizona state Superintendent Tom Horne , “Thank you for fighting for our Constitution and laws!” along with his signature. Oklahoma chief Ryan Walters posted of himself at his desk signing the form. 

“No DEI in Oklahoma schools,” he said. “We will talk about merit and American exceptionalism, and we’ll have the best school system possible, thanks to President Trump.”

While some state and district leaders likely viewed the form as a “box to check,” others may see it as “provocation,” said Jackie Wernz, a civil rights attorney and consultant who worked in both the Obama and first Trump administrations.

“The department’s shifting guidance in recent months has created a lot of confusion in the field,” she said. “It’s not always clear whether this is a legal compliance issue or a political messaging moment.”

Even some critics of DEI agree. Steven Wilson, a senior fellow at the free market-oriented Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research in Boston, argues that many schools, including high-performing charter networks, went astray by embracing anti-racist teaching approaches. 

He pointed, for example, to author that “worship of the written word” is evidence of white supremacy and framing around social justice issues. 

“These teachings are enormously destructive,” said Wilson, who founded the Ascend charter school network in Brooklyn, New York. “I would be hard pressed to think of a more damaging message to impart to teachers of Black and brown children than that the worship of the written word is whiteness.” 

But Wilson views the department’s threat to federal funding as equally harmful. “The audacity” of tying the compliance form to funding for programs that serve students in poverty and those with disabilities, he said “has to be vigorously contested.” 

‘Historically underserved’

Title I, the biggest federal education program, totals over $18 billion. Part of the 1960s War on Poverty, it has “really been a cornerstone of federal funding in K-12 for the better part of a century,” said Jess Gartner, founder of Allovue, a school finance technology company that’s now part of PowerSchool. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, currently funded at $15 billion, came a decade later in 1975. 

Officials can’t withhold those funds with “a wave of the hand and a strike of the pen” or because “someone won’t sign a form,” Gartner said. “There is for reporting, investigating and determining that discrimination has actually occurred.” 

In 2023, under former Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, the department withheld federal funds from Maine for not meeting state testing requirements. But that was after two years of being out of compliance, and officials the state could reserve for administrative costs — not the money that goes to schools.

The Trump administration has demonstrated that it will abruptly cancel funding that has already been approved by Congress. That’s why finance officers like Carpenter in Denver are on edge about how the department will respond to states that didn’t sign the form. 

Title I funding supports about half of the Denver district’s 207 schools, where immigrant and non-English-speaking parents especially rely on liaisons like Boni Sanchez Florez. He helps them access after-school classes, mental health services and low-cost internet. But  Florez also encourages them to take leadership roles and speak up about issues that affect their children, like .

“It’s hard enough for them to walk in a building with a staff that is predominantly 80% white. How do you build that trust in a community that doesn’t trust the system?” asked Florez, who moved to the U.S. from Mexico as a child. “If I’m in my dad’s shoes 30 years ago, I would want people to reach out to me.”

Nearby in Jeffco Public Schools, Colorado’s second largest district, roughly 100 staff members are directly paid with Title I funds, said Tara Peña, chief of family partnerships and community engagement. They include three “family ambassadors” who work out of a mobile welcome center — a customized bus that hosts enrollment fairs, book giveaways and what Peña called “goodwill events.”

The welcome center staff signs families up for Medicaid or free lunch programs and teams up with other community groups to distribute school and hygiene supplies.

“A loss in federal funding would be very destructive and be very impactful to the supports and the services that we provide to our most vulnerable students,” Peña said. “The students who’ve been historically underserved would continue to be the ones that would be harmed.” 

‘Four years?’

The potential cuts to funding also come as districts across the country are finalizing their budgets for the upcoming school year, with federal funds in mind. Before McMahon announced the certification requirement on April 3, most had already issued contracts for staff for this fall. 

In California, which receives over $2 billion in Title I funds and almost $1.6 billion from IDEA, the deadline to issue any layoff notices was March 15. 

That means districts would still be obligated to pay employees whose salaries come from those sources “whether they get funding or don’t,” said Michael Fine, CEO of the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, a state agency responsible for financial oversight of districts. “Districts did not contemplate such a loss before the March 15 layoff window.”

Districts in Michigan, another state that declined to sign the form, are in the same predicament. For now, the Detroit Public Schools Community District — where roughly 25% of the budget comes from federal sources — has committed to not letting any employees go. But Jeremy Vidito, chief financial officer, said that could just be a temporary solution if the department fully cuts Title I. 

“Maybe we can bridge two years with our fund balance. But four years? There’s no way,” he said. “It will mean school closures. It will mean reduced services for our kids and walking back the intervention programs.”

With a student poverty rate of  more than 80%, the nearly $125 million Detroit receives in Title I funding pays for counselors, social workers, and art and music teachers, as well as  high school administrators who are focused on keeping ninth graders on track for graduation. 

For LaQuitta Brown’s son Kermari, a 7 year old with autism, art has been especially important. He struggled to speak until last year, but he could communicate with his mother by drawing pictures, Brown said. Through special education, he receives speech and occupational therapy. His mother also depends on a mobile vision screening program for his checkups.

“He wouldn’t be where he would be without those services,” she said. “It takes a village, especially when you have a child needing special attention.”

Title I also supports high-dosage tutoring in Detroit, one of the reasons, Vidito said, why the district outperformed most other large, urban systems in a from researchers at Harvard and Stanford universities. Last school year, the district also saw in reading than the state as a whole.

“We are seeing results,” he said. “We have committed to educating all kids, but if we start to defund education, then we’re stepping back from that commitment.”

Most right-leaning think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, welcome the department’s certification requirement and its interpretation of the decision. 

That opinion didn’t mention K-12 schools, but it has “broad implications for the use of racial preferences in public education services at the K-12 and postsecondary levels,” said Jonathan Butcher, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. “The majority opinion and supporting opinions deal with rooting out racism writ large from education.” 

But Wilson at the Pioneer Institute said the AFT lawsuit is “one of those relatively rare moments” of agreement he has with AFT President Randi Weingarten. She said the anti-DEI directives would hamper schools’ efforts to teach accurate history, including the harms of slavery and persecution of minority groups. 

“If that is what [the department] has in mind as a federal prohibition, that would be devastating.” he said. Trump, is “claiming, rather flamboyantly, to devolve education back to the states while announcing this unprecedented intrusion into what schools and districts may teach.”

����Ӱ��’s Mark Keierleber contributed to this story.

Early this month, the U.S. Department of Education issued an ultimatum to K-12 public schools and state education agencies: Certify that you are not engaging in discrimination under the banner of diversity, equity and inclusion, or risk losing federal funding — including billions in support for low-income students.

The backlash was immediate. Some states with Democratic governors refused to comply, arguing that the directive lacks legal basis, fails to clearly define what constitutes “,” and threatens vital equity-based initiatives in their schools.

After lawsuits from the National Education Association teachers union and the American Civil Liberties Union, the Department of Education agreed to delay enforcement until .

But states across the country, both liberal- and conservative-led, are worried about losing other aid: the pandemic-era money that in some cases they’ve already spent or committed to spending.

The Department of Education has long played a critical role in distributing federal funds to states for K-12 education, including Title I grants to boost staffing in schools with high percentages of low-income students, and emergency relief like that provided during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conservative-led states — particularly Mississippi, South Dakota and Arkansas — rely the most heavily on these funds to sustain services in high-need districts.

The 15 states with the highest percentage of their K-12 budget coming from federal funding in fiscal year 2022 — the latest year with data available from the National Center for Education Statistics — voted for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Similarly, 10 of the 15 states receiving the highest amounts of Title I funding in fiscal year 2024 also voted for Trump.

Mississippi and Kentucky have sent letters to the Department of Education expressing concern over halted pandemic aid.

The clash over federal funding comes even as the future of the Department of Education is murky, given President Donald �հ��ܳ���’s pledge to dismantle the department.

DEI-related cuts

In letters to the Department of Education, state officials and superintendents in Illinois, New York and Wisconsin pushed back against the DEI directive.

said they would not provide additional certification beyond what the state already has done, asserting that there “are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.” Illinois Superintendent Tony Sanders he was concerned that the Department of Education was changing the conditions of federal funding without a formal administrative process. Wisconsin Superintendent Jill Underly .

New York State Department of Education Counsel and Deputy Commissioner Daniel Morton-Bentley noted that the federal department’s current stance on DEI starkly contrasts with its position during �հ��ܳ���’s first term, when then-Education Secretary Betsy DeVos supported such efforts.

and also confirmed they would not comply with the Department of Education’s order.

While some states with liberal leaders are gearing up for legal battles and possible revocation of funding, conservative-led states such as Florida have embraced the federal directive as part of a broader push to reshape public education.

In Florida, have been in place dating back to 2023. In fact, say they plan to follow the federal department’s directives, noting the similar state laws.

Pandemic aid cancellations

In March, the Department of Education abruptly rescinded previously approved extensions of pandemic-era aid, ending access to funds months ahead of the original March 2026 deadline.

When the Massachusetts governor’s office voiced concern over that decision, the federal department’s reply on social media was blunt: “”

Sixteen and the District of Columbia filed a federal lawsuit against the Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon, challenging the abrupt rescission of previously approved extensions for spending COVID-19 education relief funds.

But backlash against abrupt federal cuts to education has not been limited to blue states.

Mississippi’s Department of Education warned the cuts would jeopardize more than $137 million in already obligated funds, slated for literacy initiatives, mental health services and infrastructure repairs. “The impact of this sudden reversal is detrimental to Mississippi students,” state Superintendent Lance Evans wrote in to McMahon.

The letter also outlines the state’s repeated — but unsuccessful — efforts to draw down millions in approved funds since February.

Shanderia Minor, a spokesperson for the Mississippi education department, told Stateline the agency is awaiting next steps and direction about the funds and federal directives.

In Kentucky, state Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher — which stand to lose tens of millions in pandemic aid — that abrupt federal changes leave them “in a difficult position,” with schools already having committed funds to teacher training and facility upgrades.

According to Kentucky Department of Education spokesperson Jennifer Ginn, the state has about $18 million in unspent pandemic aid funds left to distribute to districts. And districts have about $38 million in unspent funds, for a total $56 million that could be lost.

Lauren Farrow, a former Florida public school teacher, told Stateline that schools that receive Title I money are already underfunded — and the federal threat only widens the gap.

“Florida is pouring billions into education — but where is it going? Because we’re not seeing it in schools, especially not in Title I schools,” said Farrow. “I taught five minutes away from a wealthier school, and we didn’t even have pencils. Teachers were buying shoes for students. Why is that still happening?”

Effects in the classroom

Tafshier Cosby, senior director of the Center for Organizing and Partnerships at the National Parents Union, a parents advocacy group, told Stateline that while most families don’t fully understand the various school funding systems, they feel the impact of cuts in the classroom.

Cosby said parents are worried about the loss of support services for students with disabilities, Title I impacts, and how debates about DEI may deflect from more urgent needs like literacy and teacher support.

“We’ve been clear: DEI isn’t the federal government’s role — it’s up to states,” she said. “But the confusion is real. And the impact could be devastating.”

Today, as a consultant working with teachers across Florida’s Orange County Public Schools — one of the largest districts in the country — Farrow says many educators are fearful and confused about how to support their students under changing DEI laws.

“Teachers are asking, ‘Does this mean I can’t seat a student with glasses at the front of the room anymore?’ There’s so much fear around what we’re allowed to do now.”

“There’s no one giving teachers guidance or even basic acknowledgment. We’re just left wondering what we’re allowed to say or do — and that’s dangerous.”

Amanda Hernández contributed to this report. Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

But the result was something else.

Parents bombarded the dedicated email address with off-topic rants on issues from kids using outdated textbooks to districts that failed to pay for special education evaluations. In the end, the process likely attracted more critics than supporters to the governor’s cause.  urged Black parents to “flood” the governor with complaints about “history being silenced.” The state shut the tip line down offering scant evidence of indoctrination.

A New Hampshire project met . State officials disabled it last year after a ruled that the state’s 2021 “banned concepts” laws that restricted lessons on LGBTQ issues and racial history were too vague. 

But in Oklahoma, a school safety alert system that Superintendent Ryan Walters uses to expose and punish what he calls the Five complaints pointed to books that Walters deemed “pornographic” in a district north of Oklahoma City. His accusation sparked a legal battle over whether the state chief could control the contents of school libraries. 

Richard Cobb, superintendent of the Mid-Del Schools, outside Oklahoma City, called the online system “a huge overreach.” 

“It’s frustrating because anyone can report anything,” he said. “Then the burden is on us to prove our innocence.”

And for many educators, there’s the rub — especially now that the Trump administration has made combating diversity, equity and inclusion an urgent national priority.

On Feb. 27, the U.S. Department of Education launched the . Its name leaves no doubt about its purpose — to uncover and eradicate examples of diversity, equity and inclusion in more than 100,000 schools across the nation. In a statement, Moms for Liberty co-founder Tiffany Justice urged parents to “share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools.”

Trump made the issue a hallmark of his campaign, calling such policies “absolute nonsense” and “illegal.” 

On the department’s portal, a simple online form invites parents to report “illegal discriminatory practices“ that the department will use to launch investigations. 

But the department didn’t say what made DEI illegal, and the concept has proved notoriously difficult to define. Schools have implemented race-focused activities like in elementary school, drawing backlash from parents who say the lessons make their children feel ashamed. But others have blocked lessons of clear historical significance, such as about Ruby Bridges, the first Black child to attend a school in New Orleans. 

Even in its attempt to eliminate DEI, the department has found the concept to be something of a moving target.

The launch of the portal followed a stern from the Office for Civil Rights that districts could face investigation if they treat “students differently on the basis of race.” In response, some teachers from lessons on Black history. A day after unveiling the portal, however, officials followed up with a more , explaining that cultural observances like Black History Month and International Holocaust Remembrance Day would be acceptable as long as all students, regardless of race, are welcome to participate. 

But the department recently resumed the offensive. Last week, it told states and districts to sign a document certifying that they have eliminated DEI practices or risk losing millions of dollars in federal funding. The department has since extended the deadline until April 24, said Madi Biedermann, a department spokeswoman.

New York is among of states that has . Washington state Superintendent Chris Reykdal called the department’s ultimatum “an assault on the autonomy of states” and said it would be “irresponsible” to sign the certification. California also seems to be . In an emailed statement, the state education agency called the demand “another attempt to impose a national ideology on local schools by threatening to withhold vital resources for students.”

Adding to the outsize stakes is the way the Trump administration has weaponized the issue, canceling grants and connected with even tangential connections to DEI work. In some cases, it has used DEI as an excuse to challenge legitimate history and bolster thinly veiled discrimination. Using artificial intelligence to comb through over 1,000 web pages, the Pentagon to notable achievements among minority members of the military. It later restored some of them. And in January, Trump for a fatal mid-air collision between a helicopter and a plane over the Potomac River.

Those who have worked in states that have implemented tip lines expect End DEI to meet with a similar flurry of confusion, tangents, spam, personal grievances — and a chill on important classroom discussions.

“I can see the parallel” with Oklahoma, Cobb said. “We’ve seen the Trump administration bully powerful law firms and Ivy League schools into submission. I imagine they would have zero qualms about applying similar pressure to individuals or school districts.”

‘Snitch line mentality’

The department’s move comes amid deep national divisions about DEI. A January by The Economist and YouGov found a roughly even split, with 45% in favor of ending such programs in government and schools, and 40% opposed.

As Trump took office on Jan. 20, another survey attempted to gauge the effects of critical race theory on classroom instruction. The results were similarly mixed. Fifty-eight percent  of high school students reported that their  teachers frequently make comments like, “We must be actively anti-racist,” while 42% responded that teachers support the Black Lives Matter movement. At the same time, 77% said their teachers either never or rarely made them feel uncomfortable about disagreeing with their point of view. 

Brian Kisida, a government and public affairs professor at the University of Missouri and a lead author of the study, said the department’s portal could give parents a vehicle for reporting actual discrimination against their children. But he expressed concern that the likely result would be to magnify the polarization it is designed to eradicate, saying “this snitch line mentality can do more harm than good.”

“I expect many of these disputes could be solved if parents and educators just had good-faith conversations with each other, and both sides would likely learn something in the process,” he said.

Some wonder how the department can thoughtfully navigate the issues, given the dramatic cuts to the program that normally would have been responsible for investigating discrimination complaints: the department’s civil rights office.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon eliminated half of the OCR staff along with seven regional offices that handle investigations. With its remaining employees, the department redirected civil rights enforcement toward administration priorities like ending antisemitic protests on college campuses and keeping transgender students out of girls’ sports. 

“If you’re dismantling the Department of Education and moving everything somewhere else, who are these people that are going to do the investigation?” asked LaToya Baldwin Clark, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles who . “Who are these people that actually do any type of enforcement?”

Biedermann, the department spokeswoman, would not say who is reviewing the submissions or whether officials have followed up on any tips. But unlike the Department of Defense, she said staff members at the department — not AI — will review submissions to identify potential areas for investigation. Biederman offered no information on how many reports the system has received, but Marleigh Schaefer, a spokeswoman for Moms for Liberty, said “thousands of parents have submitted to the portal.” 

One of them is Lauren McDonough, part of a Texas conservative group called Families Engaged.

In her complaint to the department, she described her failed attempts to get the Richardson Independent School District to pass a policy requiring students to use bathrooms that match their sex assigned at birth. She became concerned after learning that a trans girl in first grade attends her daughters’ school. In an email, a district official told her that schools consider transgender students’ requests on a case-by-case basis.

“I was like ‘What the heck, it takes five minutes,’ ” McDonough said of the form. “If something comes of it, great, but my hopes are very low. I feel like I have to exhaust my resources as a parent.”

Biedermann said people who make submissions shouldn’t necessarily expect a response and described the portal as a “tool to identify where and if there are pockets or patterns of … violations.”

Not surprisingly, the site, created by staff from billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, fell prey to pranks. “Y’all know what to do …Copy the Bee Movie script,” one critic — a reference to an about sending the entire script from the 2014 movie to crash a site. Three former staffers at the department said in the rush to get the portal up, the site went down within 12 hours.

“We were laughing about it,” said a former employee who asked to remain anonymous to protect colleagues still at the department. 

Biedermann acknowledged that the portal was initially overwhelmed, but said it resumed operations in about an hour and is now working smoothly.

‘Name names’ 

In Virginia, Youngkin set up his special email address to make good on a promise to listen to parents’ concerns. His successful run for governor in 2021 tapped into deep anger over remote learning and fears that critical race theory was infiltrating classrooms. An academic principle usually reserved for graduate schools, CRT argues that racism is built into the fabric of American institutions.

As governor, Youngkin’s first banned classroom lessons based on CRT. On a , he promoted the tip line as a way to track down “inherently divisive teaching practices.” 

He called out the Fairfax County district for a high school English assignment, titled Privilege Bingo, that was intended to teach students about diverse perspectives. The squares on the bingo card listed features such as being white, Christian, male and able-bodied. , an Army veteran complained that the lesson listed being part of a military family as an example of privilege. The district apologized and revised the activity, but said it remained committed to teaching students how to understand multiple viewpoints. Youngkin pledged to wipe out similar lessons from Virginia classrooms. 

“We’re going to make sure that we catalog it all,” he said.

But the effort didn’t go as planned. Teachers in the Prince William County district, next to Fairfax, thought it was a joke. They even ordered custom T-shirts that read “Hi tip line? I’d like to report Virginia teachers for being incredible at what they do. Thanks Bye.” 

“We just couldn’t believe that they were going to spend tax dollars to run this tip line, but not fully fund our schools to decrease class sizes,” said Angie Trerotola, a high school social studies teacher in Prince William.  

Saturday Night Live’s Weekend Update got into the act. Co-anchor Colin Jost quipped, “You know you’re racist when you call the cops about a Black character in a book.”

In response to public records requests, the governor’s staff initially submissions to the tip line. But when several news outlets sued, the governor turned over 350 emails as part of a settlement, few of which pointed to lessons Youngkin was trying to eliminate. A spokesman referred ����Ӱ�� to a statement it released in the fall of 2022 explaining that it the tip line because it was “receiving little to no volume.”

A similar tip line in Rhode Island also failed to gain traction. The Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a nonprofit, at the height of outrage and confusion over how schools were teaching racial issues. It called on parents to “‘name names’ of those indoctrinating our kids.” 

The free market think tank and the conservative Civics Alliance collaborated on that said state social studies standards are “animated by a radical identity-politics ideology” and show “hostility toward America.” The standards expect students to study Latino history, workers’ rights and feminism, they wrote, but distort “history where white men played the leading roles.”

More recently, Mike Stenhouse, the center’s CEO, that a policy that recognizes transgender students and protects their decision to use restrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity puts them at risk of a civil rights investigation by the Trump administration.

But after four years, the group’s tip line had nothing to show for it, Stenhouse said in an email. The line “has not yielded any notable results” or received many “credible responses,” he said. Stenhouse blamed the lack of participation on the center’s failure to adequately promote the site.

‘Soup du jour’

In Oklahoma, Superintendent Walters has had more success getting the public’s help. His predecessor, Joy Hofmeister, launched a website called Awareity to report school security risks. Walters turned to it to and districts violating a state law banning divisive concepts and his own mandates.

last year focused on two books in the Edmond School District’s high school libraries. The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini, is an award-winning bestseller about an Afghan boy’s relationship with his father set against the backdrop of the Soviet-Afghan war, and The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls is a memoir about growing up in a dysfunctional family. Both books include descriptions of sexual assault.

Walters threatened to downgrade the district’s accreditation if they didn’t remove them. When the district sued over his rule, it had chosen to “peddle porn and is leading the charge to undermine parents in Oklahoma.”

Cobb, the Mid-Del superintendent, didn’t pull the books, but others preemptively removed the titles and similar ones Walters labeled “filth.”

“I guess we all have to make our own decisions,” Cobb said. “But I’d rather stand up and fight than comply in advance with something that is wrong.”

Walters lost the case Edmond brought against him last year. The Oklahoma Supreme Court accused the superintendent of acting with “unauthorized quasi-judicial authority” and said decisions over library materials are up to local districts. 

The option to report “pornographic materials or sexualized content” no longer appears in Awareity’s dropdown menu. The public also can no longer use it to report that a teacher is violating the state’s divisive concepts law. Last June, a federal judge parts of the legislation, finding some of the language confusing for teachers to follow. 

But Walters has a new use for Awareity. The public can report a “violation of religious liberty and patriotism rights.” Those categories complement his controversial mandate for teachers to in the classroom and that students should be allowed to fly and display the American flag at school “without infringement.”��

“It’s like the soup du jour — whatever issues seem to be playing well at the current time,” said Brendon Hoover, coordinator at the Kirkpatrick Policy Group, which advocates for schools having full-time librarians.

He worked with Oklahoma Appleseed for Law and Justice, a nonprofit law firm, to file an open records request for Awareity files. Complaints included objections to schools offering Stamped, by anti-racist author Ibram Kendi, and a middle school book fair featuring selections from the LGBTQ-themed Heartstopper series of graphic novels.

The Oklahoma Department of Education did not respond to questions about Awareity.

Hoover blames the current atmosphere surrounding classroom instruction for contributing to an exodus of teachers from the profession and the state. Last year, Oklahoma approved nearly for teachers to fill vacancies, breaking a previous record, the Oklahoma Voice reported.

“Oklahoma has a huge teacher shortage,” Hoover said, “and it’s because teachers are under attack by their own state Superintendent.”

One former Oklahoma health teacher got tired of being a target. Describing herself as a “blue drop in a red sea,” she said the threat of being reported for discussing racial issues was one reason she left the classroom in 2022. She stopped teaching a lesson about how the slave trade likely contributed to Black Americans’ to certain diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure. After parents complained, an administrator encouraged her to drop the material from her curriculum.

“What the parents heard was, ‘White folks did this to Black folks,’ ” said the teacher, who asked to remain anonymous to protect future job prospects.

UCLA’s Clark said she expects the new End DEI portal to create a similar chill. 

“These mechanisms to surveil and to monitor teachers and principals are ripe for reports that are not serious or not given in good faith,” she said. Ultimately, she said, “the purpose is to get people to self-censor.”

As educators nationwide grapple with stubbornly high levels of student absences since the pandemic drove schools into disarray five years ago, Oklahoma prosecutor Erik Johnson says he has the solution. 

This week, I offer a look at chronic absenteeism’s persistence long after COVID shuttered classrooms, plunged families into poverty and led to the deaths of more than 1 million Americans. Lawmakers nationwide have proposed dozens of bills this year designed to curtail student absences — with radically different approaches.

While a proposal in Hawaii would reward kids’ good attendance with ice cream, new laws in Indiana, West Virginia and Iowa impose fines and jail time for parents who can’t compel their children to attend class regularly. In Oklahoma, where Johnson has ushered in a new era of truancy crackdowns, state lawmakers say parents — not principals and teachers — should be held accountable for students’ repeat absences.

“We prosecute everything from murders to rape to financial crimes, but in my view, the ones that cause the most societal harm is when people do harm to children, either child neglect, child physical abuse, child sexual abuse, domestic violence in homes, and then you can add truancy to the list,” Johnson told me this week. 

“It’s not as bad, in my opinion, as beating a child, but it’s on the spectrum because you’re not putting that child in a position to be successful,” continued Johnson, who has dubbed 2025 the “Year of the Child.”

In the news

Books are not a crime — yet: Under proposed Texas legislation, teachers could soon face jail sentences for teaching classic literary works with sexual content, including The Catcher in the Rye and (unironically?) Brave New World. | 

Mass layoffs at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week could have devastating consequences for the health and well-being of low-income children. | 

Ten days or else: The Education Department demanded Thursday that states certify in writing within the next 10 days that K-12 schools are complying with its interpretation of civil rights laws, namely eliminating any diversity, equity and inclusion programs, or else risk losing their federal funding. | 

A Texas teen was kneed in the face by a school cop: Now, with steep cuts to the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, her case is one of thousands that have been left to languish. | 

Students’ right to privacy versus parents’ right to know: The Trump administration has opened an investigation into a California law designed to protect transgender students from being outed to their parents, alleging violations of the federal student privacy law. | 

• A similar investigation has been opened against officials in Maine, where the feds claim district policies to protect students’ privacy come at the expense of parents’ right to information. | 
  
• “Parents are the most natural protectors of their children,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement after a similar federal investigation was launched against Virginia educators. “Yet many states and school districts have enacted policies that imply students need protection from their parents.” | 
  
• A little context: In a recent survey, more than 92% of parents said they were supportive of their child’s transgender identity. | 

The Student Press Law Center joined a coalition of free speech and journalism organizations in denouncing the recent ICE detention of Tufts University international student Rumeysa Ozturk over opinions she expressed in an op-ed in the student newspaper. 

• “Such a basis for her detention would represent a blatant disregard for the principles of free speech and free press within the First Amendment,” the groups wrote in their letter. | 
  
• The Turkish doctoral candidate is one of several students who’ve been rounded up by immigration officials in recent weeks based on pro-Palestinian comments. | 

Florida lawmakers have a plan to fill the jobs of undocumented workers who are deported: Put kids on the overnight shift. | 

Minority report: Following bipartisan opposition, Georgia lawmakers have given up on efforts to create a statewide student-tracking database designed to identify youth who could commit future acts of violence. | 

A majority of school district programs focused on protecting student data are led by administrators with little training in privacy issues, a new report finds. | 

Washington students’ sensitive data was exposed. The culprit? A student surveillance tool. | 

ICYMI @The74

Emotional Support

Annie, who lives with ����Ӱ�� social media guru Christian Skotte, is the cutest regular at Brooklyn’s Prospect Park. You won’t convince me otherwise. 

The U.S. Department of Education is giving state education agencies 10 days to certify that their schools do not engage in any practices that the administration believes illegally promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In a letter sent Thursday, the Education Department told state schools chiefs that they must that their schools are in compliance with its controversial interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and with the .

Those that do not sign will not receive any federal funding, officials said. Federal funding represents about 10% of all K-12 funding nationwide but makes up a larger share of local budgets in high-poverty districts.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

The threat comes as many school districts are preparing their budgets for the next school year.

“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. “When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements.

“Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.”

The Students for Fair Admissions decision barred the use of racial considerations in college admissions but . But that the decision meant any consideration of race or of proxies for race in educational settings would violate civil rights law.

The Trump administration has said that would extend to considering race as a factor in school admissions, hiring or promoting staff, awarding students scholarships or prizes, providing students with administrative support, and deciding how students should be sanctioned or disciplined.

For example, dropping the use of test scores as an admissions criteria for a selective program with the hopes of increasing racial diversity or holding a separate graduation ceremony to recognize students of a particular ethnic group could violate the law.

Many legal experts believe the administration’s interpretation is incorrect and goes much further than the Supreme Court did.

The generated significant confusion among school and district leaders and is . At the same time, conservative groups have adopted its argument to challenge initiatives that aim to address long-standing disparities, such as .

The demand that state education agencies certify compliance represents the latest attempt by the Trump administration to change local practices without engaging in lengthy investigations of individual complaints. State education departments would be responsible for ensuring school districts and charter schools comply.

The administration has slashed staff in the Office for Civil Rights as part of a larger downsizing of the Education Department.

Historically, even when school districts were found to be in violation of the law, the federal government has worked with them on resolution agreements .

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

After landing a spot in a nationally-competitive fellowship program for high school students run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration last summer, Keila Silva got to work investigating a local ice cream plant in Suffield.

The plant, operated by dairy company HP Hood, had over its handling of potentially-hazardous ammonia chemicals — just down the road from one of Suffield’s only federally-assisted housing developments.

Silva, a 17-year-old senior at Suffield High School, wanted to know what impact the plant was having on her community, so she spent this school year combing through a trove of online records dating back to the 1990s.

She was putting the final touches on a report summarizing her findings last month when she got an email from a fellowship supervisor inviting her to an “emergency” meeting on Feb. 18. The purpose of that meeting, Silva soon learned, was to discuss the Trump administration’s related to “diversity, equity and inclusion” — a term broadly used to describe policies aimed at combating discrimination and civil rights violations and promoting diversity.

The message of the meeting was blunt: The federal government would no longer be supporting the projects she and her peers had spent months working on.

“It was heartbreaking to hear,” Silva said in a recent interview. “I had a feeling that it was going to happen, and I had personally been preparing myself for that reality, only because just seeing the news, it seemed like it was going to be inevitable, and unfortunately that ended up being true.”

While much of the focus on President Donald Trump’s massive revamping of the federal government has been on its impact to thousands of government workers, Silva’s story and others show how even high school students are getting caught up in the tumult. Last week, WSHU reported that a New Haven charter school was from a “green jobs” workforce development program after its federal funding was cut off.

In a statement Friday, Conservation Law Foundation staff attorney Rachel Briggs condemned the administration’s treatment of young people working on federally-backed climate and environmental policy programs. (Briggs is one of several local environmental advocates who have signed a letter of support for Silva’s work.)

“President Trump is dismantling vital agencies like NOAA and the [Environmental Protection Agency], laying off dedicated public servants and eliminating opportunities for young people committed to making their neighborhoods safer and healthier,” Briggs said. “We should be encouraging these young people who are driven to make a difference in the world and ensure that every community has clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. They are a model for all of us, particularly for those in the highest levels of our federal government.”

The Young Changemakers Fellowship began in 2023 as a joint effort between NOAA and the North American Association for Environmental Education, “dedicated to collaborating with and empowering the next generation of ocean and environmental leaders,” according announcing the program’s continuation last year. The NAAEE, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C., provided operational support for the program in cooperation with the federal agency.

Silva was part of the second cohort of fellows, which she said included students from ten other states, as well as Guam and American Samoa.

A notice now posted atop the states that fellowship will not run in the upcoming school year, but it doesn’t give an explanation.

The president’s , which preceded the fellowship’s discontinuation called on officials to “coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal DEI and ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.”

A spokesman for NOAA declined to comment on any changes made to the program as a result of Trump’s executive orders, citing a “long-standing practice” of not discussing internal personnel or management matters.

“NOAA remains dedicated to its mission, providing timely information, research, and resources that serve the American public and ensure our nation’s environmental and economic resilience,” the spokesman, Scott Smullen, said in an email.

Stacie Pierpoint, a spokeswoman for NAAEE, said the decision to discontinue the program was made by federal authorities, and she declined to speculate on whether it might resume.

“We hope it comes back in the future,” Pierpoint said in an email. “We need more programs that build leadership and civic engagement skills and help protect people and the planet.”

Silva said she first became interested in environmental justice after participating in a for teenagers at the University of Connecticut during her sophomore year of high school. In that program, Silva said she used an EPA database to compare how people living in low-income and minority neighborhoods were being disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change.

“I have always been more of a social justice person” Silva said. “I didn’t go into environmental work really liking the science-y part of it.”

But as she dug into the data, Silva said she began to see connections between environmental conditions and social movements she’d previously expressed an interest in. Then one day when perusing the , she noticed the Hood ice cream plant near her home had been identified as a hazardous waste site.

“Being one of the people who do live within this one-mile radius of the facility, it made me concerned, because I had no idea this was happening,” Silva said. “I had asked my family about that, because we lived in our home for about 40 years, and they had no idea about it.”

After she was accepted into the Young Changemakers Fellowship last year, Silva said she and her peers were told to explore questions of equity as part of the projects they’d be working on throughout the year. Because Suffield — a relatively affluent and mostly white town — has few places that are affordable for low-income residents, Silva said she decided to make the plant the subject of her project.

Silva focused on the plant’s proximity to a local housing development, Brook Hill Village, which town officials identified as one of the only developments utilizing government assistance for affordable family housing in a . Residents of the census tract containing the development, she also noted, are more likely to be racial or ethnic minorities than in other areas of town.

Through her research, Silva identified 24 instances in which the Hood plant reported spills or chemical releases to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Those incidents involved ammonia, diesel fuel, wastewater and, , 2,000 gallons of chocolate ice cream mix that that seeped out of a container into the plant.

While Silva’s report did not identify any specific instances in which Brook Hill Village residents suffered harmful health effects from the plants’ releases, she argued that its operations contributed to the area’s “moderate-high” environmental burden — a designation laid out in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s .

(The database was one of several federal public health websites that a judge in February after the Trump administration sought to pull them offline, citing to other outlets that the data did not conform with presidential executive orders related to diversity and gender identity. A notice now posted atop the ATSDR states, “This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it.”)

Before she could publish her findings, however, Silva said she and her peers were told by a fellowship supervisor at NOAA that if they chose continue with their projects they would have to remove any mention of their affiliation with the agency, its fellowship or the NAAEE, the nonprofit association supporting the fellowship.

Fortunately, Silva had already completed most of the work on her project and was able to quickly pivot to getting support from the Conservation Law Foundation as well as the Sierra Club and the Nonprofit Accountability Group, an advocacy organization based in Hartford. Representatives from each of those groups agreed to sign a cover letter endorsing Silva’s project, which she said lent credence to findings after it lost backing from NOAA.

Silva said that some of her peers in the program have found it more difficult to continue their work, particularly those whose projects relied on government-licensed GIS mapping software.

“They’re just devastated, but also angry,” Silva said. “We have our own group chat and everyone was blowing up like, ‘Oh my god, I didn’t expect this.'”

Ultimately, Silva published her findings earlier this month in a report that was sent to local officials in Suffield as well as Hood. She included a list of several recommendations for the company, including the installation of new chemical sensors to monitor releases, distributing fact sheets and engaging in community outreach with residents of the surrounding area.

Hood did not respond to requests for comment about Silva’s findings.

“Keila has done amazing research in her community to address an important pollution issue,” said Samantha Dynowski, the Connecticut state director for the Sierra Club. “The arbitrary decision of the Trump administration to cut off resources for this kind of work was unneeded and shouldn’t have been done.”

Since the meeting on Feb. 18, Silva said she and her peers have received emails from federal staffers working with the fellowship soliciting ideas for future meetings between now and the program’s end date in June. In addition, she said they’ve offered to provide advice for professional development and future careers, which for Silva means becoming an environmental justice attorney.

Silva said she’s planning to put the $750 honorarium she received as part of the fellowship towards college, and is waiting to hear back on applications to “around 20” schools where she is considering studying anthropology, sociology or public policy starting in the fall.

“It’s just kind of matter of making things fit, and adapting,” she said.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

She and 15 other students had started at the college that fall in the hopes of studying to become highly effective educators. Many of them planned to return to their rural communities after graduation to help fill a gaping teacher shortage. They were all recipients of full-tuition scholarships through the , a three-year, federally funded project meant to diversify and increase the number of teachers in Nebraska and Kansas.

What they learned that February afternoon has left many of them reeling and questioning what comes next: Abrupt federal cuts from the Trump administration — meant to root out ��෡��” practices — resulted in every one of them losing their scholarships, effective immediately. They’d be able to finish out the spring term, but as of May, the money would be gone. Of the 16 students, 14 are first-time freshmen, just beginning their higher education journeys.

“I knew we were going to get told something terrible, but I couldn’t put a stop to it,” said Vianey, who asked to be identified by her first name only because of concerns that speaking out in the media could have negative ramifications. “To me, this scholarship was my way out. It was my way to be something. To contradict all the odds that were placed on me,” she added as her voice broke and she began to cry.

“I’ve wanted to be a teacher my whole life. Now, with all of this happening, I don’t know if I can recover.”

Amanda Morales, associate professor at UNL and principal investigator on the RAÍCES project, said telling her group of undergraduate students about the funding cuts was “by far, one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do.”

“When you see young people’s dreams just shattered in an instant because of something you said or this message you had to give, how do you bounce back from that?” she asked. “What is happening to these projects and these programs is unprecedented, and it is really inhumane. There’s no other word for it.”

RAÍCES, whose name is derived from a Spanish word meaning “roots,” was one of many teacher preparation programs that suddenly lost their funding when the Education Department canceled more than in grants. The programs, meant to increase the number of teachers in high-need and hard-to-staff schools, were accused by the department of discriminating against certain populations and embracing “divisive ideologies” which aligned with diversity, equity and inclusion and “social justice activism.”

Eight attorneys general have since filed alleging the cancellation of the congressionally approved grants was unlawful. On Monday, a federal judge ordered the administration to in those eight states, which don’t include Kansas or Nebraska. Three teacher prep programs have also filed  

The scholarship, whose name stands for Re-envisioning Action and Innovation through Community Collaborations for Equity across Systems, had been promised $3.9 million through a grant, which sought to train more highly effective educators. It was housed at UNL and Kansas State University, which were required to match at least 25% of the federal funding.

RAÍCES was designed to be a comprehensive program that addressed the intractable teacher shortage in rural areas from recruiting novices to retaining veterans. It began with a high school-based program called Youth Participatory Action Research, providing students with the opportunity to explore careers in the classroom and investigate problems affecting their own education and communities. A number of students who ultimately received the full undergraduate scholarships, including Vianey, were recruited from this program. 

It also included funding for graduate-level scholarships, mentoring for teachers and ongoing professional development — meant to help educators stay in the profession long term. 

On Feb. 10, at 8:55 p.m., Socorro Herrera, professor and executive director of Kansas State’s Center for Intercultural and Multilingual Advocacy and the project’s lead principal investigator, received an email with an attached letter from the Education Department, telling her the grant would be terminated because it “is inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, Department priorities.” 

She was shocked. 

“My thought is,” she said, “it’s not ‘department priorities,’ but it is community priorities. It is state priorities. It is the priority of human beings who want to go back into those public schools in which they grew up to give back [and] to be the most highly qualified teacher they can be for all students — but also for students who are like them.”

Morales said the letter and “blanket termination” of all SEED grants “left all of us just reeling with no clarity, no support, no one to call. Even our program officers are inaccessible. We were just left in the lurch — left to just flounder and try to pick up the pieces of this shattered project.”

‘[The] teacher that I wish I had’

Vianey was born in Mexico and came to the U.S. as a toddler with her parents and three siblings. The family spent their first decade or so in Washington state, where Vianey attended school as an English language learner. Even as a kid, Vianey was aware of the shortfalls of her school’s program and the negative impact it had on her and her English learner classmates.

“I just want to be that teacher that I wish I had when I was growing up to others,” she said.

She noted it was particularly challenging to not have any teachers who looked like her or shared her life experiences. At the time, this made her feel like her dream of becoming an educator might not be attainable, a narrative she hopes to combat.

“It gives you a sense of belonging when you see somebody that looks like you in the classroom,” she added.

When Vianey was in high school she moved to Nebraska with her mom, where she attended Lincoln High School and participated in the youth action program, which allowed her to do research on English language programs in her state. Eventually this led her to the RAÍCES scholarship at UNL, where she’s studying secondary education for Spanish, in the hopes of eventually returning to her own high school. 

As of December 2024, Nebraska schools had about , meaning they were staffed by someone other than a fully qualified teacher or were left totally vacant. About half of districts that responded to the state’s request for data reported complete vacancies. 

At roughly the same time, Kansas had almost — an 8%  increase from the previous spring, according to the teacher licensure director for the Kansas State Department of Education.

Nationally there were almost according to the Learning Policy Institute’s most recent analysis, likely a significant undercount because only 30 states and Washington, D.C. publish such data. 

has shown that rural schools face distinct difficulties filling their teaching positions, and that teacher turnover is especially common in high-poverty rural schools. And hiring foreign language and bilingual education teachers is especially hard.

“The money, explicitly and intentionally, was about increasing the number of teachers in rural schools,” said Herrera. 

Vianey had acute ELL teacher shortages in her own district in mind when she decided to apply to RAÍCES. Getting accepted into the full scholarship program “meant everything” to her and to her parents, whose formal education ended after third grade. 

“[My mom] felt like she succeeded and she was finally being able to achieve what she came here to do, and that is to give us a better life,” said Vianey.

‘We’re not rolling over here’

Vianey is among the at least 70 high school students, 26 undergraduates and 40 master’s students across the two universities who have been impacted by the cuts, along with the almost 1,000 teachers in partnering districts who were receiving ongoing education and professional development.

The ripple effects are far-reaching, potentially impacting thousands of students whose chances of getting a highly qualified, fully certified teacher have now been diminished.

When the funding runs out this spring, Tiffaney Locke — a 42-year-old career changer who has spent the past 12 years working in community mental health — will be just two courses shy of her master’s degree. 

She said as a Black student in Kansas City schools, she was able to find success because of educators who believed in her. Her plan was to return to a similar school to be that teacher for kids who look like her. She quit her full-time job to complete what she thought would be a fully funded program and is now scared about what comes next but hopeful that her teaching career is still within reach.

While the population of the scholarship recipients is diverse, the only requirement for application was that students come from one of the six partner districts in Nebraska and Kansas, all identified as difficult to staff and, in most cases, rural. One of the districts they partnered with had almost 120 vacancies.

Of the 16 undergraduates at UNL who were supposed to receive full scholarships — including housing, meal plans and a laptop — one quarter identified as white and half identified as Hispanic or Latino, according to Morales. Three-quarters were first-generation college students and over half came from rural communities. They were all high-achieving high school students and 15 of the 16 had GPAs just over 3.5 in their first semester, well above the program’s 2.0 requirement.

“The fact that the government doesn’t think you’re worthy to be here is tragic,” Morales said.

Morales and Herrera are now scrambling to find external funding, making any attempt they can to keep the program alive, but “this may be the end of the road for many of [the students] because just loans and Pell grants wouldn’t be enough to see them through,” Herrera said.

These across-the-board cuts have also had a chilling effect, she said, making those at the university level scared to speak out for fear of retribution from the federal government. Their concern is not baseless: the Trump administration recently in funding from Columbia University and halted payment on in grants to the University of Maine system.

“Everybody’s in this silent mode, like ‘Don’t call attention to yourself, go under the radar, keep doing the work,’” she added.

But the leaders of RAÍCES aren’t done.

 “We’re not rolling over here,” said Morales. “We’re not tucking our tail and just saying, ‘OK, I guess this is just the way it is.’ We’re fighting on every front we possibly can and [are] continuing to fight up until the very last moment. I’m not giving up.”

And Vianey isn’t quitting either. She wants to send a clear message to the people who took away her scholarship: “It’s not going to stop us from achieving our dreams. We will find a way out … my purpose is to become a teacher — and I’m not going to stop until I’m able to.”

When teens and young adults with disabilities in California’s Poway Unified School District heard about a new opportunity to get extra help planning for life after high school, nearly every eligible student signed up.

The program, known as , aimed to fill a major gap in education research about what kinds of support give students nearing graduation the best shot at living independently, finding work, or continuing their studies.

Students with disabilities finish college at much lower rates than their non-disabled peers, and often struggle to tap into state employment programs for adults with disabilities, said Stacey McCrath-Smith, a director of special education at Poway Unified, which had 135 students participating in the program. So the extra help, which included learning how to track goals on a tool designed for high schoolers with disabilities, was much needed.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ����Ӱ�� Newsletter

Charting My Path launched earlier this school year in Poway Unified and 12 other school districts. The salaries of 61 school staff nationwide, and the training they received to work with nearly 1,100 high schoolers with disabilities for a year and a half, was paid for by the U.S. Department of Education.

Jessie Damroth’s 17-year-old son Logan, who has autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and other medical needs, had attended classes and met with his mentor through the program at Newton Public Schools in Massachusetts for a month. For the first time, he was talking excitedly about career options in science and what he might study at college.

“He was starting to talk about what his path would look like,” Damroth said. “It was exciting to hear him get really excited about these opportunities. … He needed that extra support to really reinforce that he could do this.”

Then the Trump administration pulled the plug.

Charting My Path was among more than 200 Education Department contracts and grants terminated over the last two weeks by the Trump administration’s U.S. DOGE Service. DOGE has slashed spending it deemed to be wasteful, fraudulent, or in service of that . But in several instances, the decision to cancel contracts affected more than researchers analyzing data in their offices — it affected students.

Many projects, like Charting My Path, involved training teachers in new methods, testing learning materials in actual classrooms, and helping school systems use data more effectively.

“Students were going to learn really how to set goals and track progress themselves, rather than having it be done for them,” McCrath-Smith said. “That is the skill that they will need post-high school when there’s not a teacher around.”

All of that work was abruptly halted — in some cases with nearly finished results that now cannot be distributed.

Every administration is entitled to set its own priorities, and contracts can be canceled or changed, said Steven Fleischman, an education consultant who for many years ran one of the regional research programs that was terminated. He compared it to a homeowner deciding they no longer want a deck as part of their remodel.

But the current approach reminds him more of construction projects started and then abandoned during the Great Recession, in some cases leaving giant holes that sat for years.

“You can walk around and say, ‘Oh, that was a building we never finished because the funds got cut off,’” he said.

DOGE drives cuts to education research contracts, grants

The Education Department has been a prime target of DOGE, the chaotic cost-cutting initiative led by billionaire Elon Musk, now a senior adviser to Trump.

So far, , many of which were under the purview of the Institute of Education Sciences, the ostensibly independent research arm of the Education Department. The administration said those cuts, which included multi-year contracts, totaled $881 million. In recent years, the federal government has spent just over $800 million on the entire IES budget.

DOGE has also that conduct research for states and local schools and shuttered four equity assistance centers that help with teacher training. The Trump administration also and that often work to improve instruction for struggling students.

. The Trump administration said the terminated Education Department contracts and grants were worth $2 billion. But some were near completion with most of the money already spent.

An NPR analysis of all of DOGE’s reported savings — though the Education Department is a top contributor.

On Friday, a federal judge issued an injunction that that might violate the anti-DEIA executive order. It’s not clear whether the injunction would prevent more contracts from being canceled “for convenience.”

Mark Schneider, the recent past IES director, . But even many conservative critics have expressed alarm at how wide-ranging and indiscriminate the cuts have been. Congress mandated many of the terminated programs, which also indirectly support state and privately funded research.

The canceled projects include contracts that support maintenance of the Common Core of Data, a major database used by policymakers, researchers, and journalists, as well as work that supports updates to the What Works Clearinghouse, a huge repository of evidence-based practices available to educators for free.

And after promising not to make any cuts to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known as the nation’s report card, the department canceled an upcoming test for 17-year-olds that helps researchers understand long-term trends. On Monday, Peggy Carr, the head of the National Center for Education Statistics, which oversees NAEP, was .

The Education Department did not respond to questions about who decided which programs to cut and what criteria were used. Nor did the department respond to a specific question about why Charting My Path was eliminated. DOGE records estimate the administration saved $22 million by terminating the program early, less than half the $54 million in the original contract.

The decision has caused .

In Utah, the Canyons School District is trying to reassign the school counselor and three teachers whose salaries were covered by the Charting My Path contract.

The district, which had 88 high schoolers participating in the program, is hoping to keep using the curriculum to boost its usual services, said Kirsten Stewart, a district spokesperson.

Officials in Poway Unified, too, hope schools can use the curriculum and tools to keep up a version of the program. But that will take time and work because the program’s four teachers had to be reassigned to other jobs.

“They dedicated that time and got really important training,” McCrath-Smith said. “We don’t want to see that squandered.”

For Damroth, the loss of parent support meetings through Charting My Path was especially devastating. Logan has a rare genetic mutation that causes him to fall asleep easily during the day, so Damroth wanted help navigating which colleges might be able to offer extra scheduling support.

“I have a million questions about this. Instead of just hearing ‘I don’t know’ I was really looking forward to working with Joe and the program,” she said, referring to Logan’s former mentor. “It’s just heartbreaking. I feel like this wasn’t well thought out. … My child wants to do things in life, but he needs to be given the tools to achieve those goals and those dreams that he has.”

DOGE cuts labs that helped ‘Mississippi Miracle’ in reading

The dramatic improvement in reading proficiency that Carey Wright oversaw as state superintendent in one the nation’s poorest states became known as the “Mississippi Miracle.”

Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast, based out of the Florida Center for Reading Research at Florida State University, was a key partner in that work, Wright said.

When Wright wondered if state-funded instructional coaches were really making a difference, REL Southeast dispatched a team to observe, videotape, and analyze the instruction delivered by hundreds of elementary teachers across the state. Researchers reported that teachers’ instructional practices aligned well with the science of reading and that teachers themselves said they felt far more knowledgeable about teaching reading.

“That solidified for me that the money that we were putting into professional learning was working,” Wright said.

The study, she noted, arose from a casual conversation with researchers at REL Southeast: “That’s the kind of give and take that the RELs had with the states.”

Wright, now Maryland state superintendent, said she was looking forward to partnering with REL Mid-Atlantic on a math initiative and on an overhaul of the school accountability system.

But this month, termination letters went out to the universities and research organizations that run the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories, which were established by Congress in 1965 to serve states and school districts. The letters said the contracts were being terminated “for convenience.”

The press release that went to news organizations cited “wasteful and ideologically driven spending” and named a single project in Ohio that involved equity audits as a part of an effort to reduce suspensions. involve reading, math, career connections, and teacher retention.

Jannelle Kubinec, CEO of WestEd, an education research organization that held the contracts for REL West and REL Northwest, said she never received a complaint or a request to review the contracts before receiving termination letters. Her team had to abruptly cancel meetings to go over results with school districts. In other cases, reports are nearly finished but cannot be distributed because they haven’t gone through the review process.

REL West was also working with the Utah State Board of Education to figure out if the legislature’s investment in programs to keep early career teachers from leaving the classroom was making a difference, among several other projects.

“This is good work and we are trying to think through our options,” she said. “But the cancellation does limit our ability to finish the work.”

Given enough time, Utah should be able to find a staffer to analyze the data collected by REL West, said Sharon Turner, a spokesperson for the Utah State Board of Education. But the findings are much less likely to be shared with other states.

The most recent contracts started in 2022 and were set to run through 2027.

The Trump administration said it planned to enter into new contracts for the RELs to satisfy “statutory requirements” and better serve schools and states, though it’s unclear what that will entail.

“The states drive the research agendas of the RELs,” said Sara Schapiro, the executive director of the Alliance for Learning Innovation, a coalition that advocates for more effective education research. If the federal government dictates what RELs can do, “it runs counter to the whole argument that they want the states to be leading the way on education.”

Some terminated federal education research was nearly complete

Some research efforts were nearly complete when they got shut down, raising questions about how efficient these cuts were.

The American Institutes for Research, for example, was almost done evaluating the impact of the , which aims to improve literacy instruction through investments like new curriculum and teacher training.

AIR’s research spanned 114 elementary schools across 11 states and involved more than 23,000 third, fourth, and fifth graders and their nearly 900 reading teachers.

Researchers had collected and analyzed a massive trove of data from the randomized trial and presented their findings to federal education officials just three days before the study was terminated.

“It was a very exciting meeting,” said Mike Garet, a vice president and institute fellow at AIR who oversaw the study. “People were very enthusiastic about the report.”

Another AIR study that was nearing completion among first and second graders. It’s a strategy that helps schools identify and provide support to struggling readers, with the most intensive help going to kids with the highest needs. It’s widely used by schools, but its effectiveness hasn’t been tested on a larger scale.

The research took place in 106 schools and involved over 1,200 educators and 5,700 children who started first grade in 2021 and 2022. Much of the funding for the study went toward paying for teacher training and coaching to roll out the program over three years. All of the data was collected and nearly done being analyzed when DOGE made its cuts.

Garet doesn’t think he and his team should simply walk away from unfinished work.

“If we can’t report results, that would violate our covenant with the districts, the teachers, the parents, and the students who devoted a lot of time in the hope of generating knowledge about what works,” Garet said. “Now that we have the data and have the results, I think we’re duty-bound to report them.”

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at .

As a result, corporations and institutions are rescinding their DEI commitments, and negative consequences are emerging. For instance, enrollment of Black and Hispanic students at selective colleges after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action.

Beyond the courts, the White House has launched its own anti-DEI initiatives, such as the executive order on January 21 — which arrived just as the nation was honoring Martin Luther King Jr. The order asserts that DEI policies “deny, discredit, and undermine the traditional American values of hard work, excellence, and individual achievement in favor of an unlawful, corrosive, and pernicious identity-based spoils system.”

As someone who has studied moral philosophy and psychology and worked on DEI initiatives throughout my career in education, I find these assumptions disturbing. Meritocracy is an ideal worth striving for, but the playing field is not level in many settings, particularly in education.

Education is rife with systemic inequities that disproportionately and predictably disadvantage students based on race, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and language. These barriers hinder fair access to resources and opportunities. For example, schools in economically disadvantaged communities, especially those serving students of color, often struggle to attract and retain experienced, highly qualified educators.

When I worked at a charter school in Indianapolis serving multilingual students and students of color, the average teacher tenure was just three years, meaning most were novices. In contrast, when I was an administrator in a highly affluent Chicago suburb, the teaching staff was a mix of experienced and new educators, most with advanced degrees and credentials. 

The disparities were staggering. consistently shows that teacher quality strongly influences student achievement. With high teacher turnover, it is nearly impossible to make strong gains, because the faculty and staff are unable to build the critical level of expertise needed for achieving excellence. Without DEI initiatives, how are schools supposed to address these persistent inequities?

People define DEI in various ways. In my work, DEI initiatives focus on analyzing, studying, and addressing inequities; promoting and valuing diversity; and creating environments that foster inclusion and belonging. For example, my team and I applied DEI frameworks to explore ways to increase the success of historically marginalized groups in STEM courses and career pathways. h showed that one barrier for many students was a lack of connections to STEM professionals. 

A school questionnaire revealed that most of our students did not personally know a scientist or understand what an engineer does. In response, we developed a STEM strategic plan that intentionally incorporated mentoring opportunities with scientists and engineers who identified as female or as people of color. In addition, we expanded access to assistive technologies for students who might otherwise struggle to fully engage with STEM content. Tools such as language translators, closed captioning, and text readers improved accessibility for multilingual learners and students receiving special education services. 

At its core, DEI is about fostering a fair and just society. Eliminating DEI programs allows deeply flawed systems to persist. In education, women and people of color remain underrepresented in leadership roles. The School Superintendents Association’s 2020 found that the typical superintendent is male and white. At the time of the study, only 27% of superintendents were women. 

A from the University of Texas at Austin confirmed similar numbers in Texas, despite women comprising 76% of the teaching workforce. This suggests that the path to leadership is not equally accessible to women, even as they are held to the same credentialing and training requirements as men. DEI initiatives help identify and address these disparities.

The same study found racial disparities in leadership, as well. While Hispanic students made up 53% of Texas’s student population, 79% of school superintendents were white. Research has shown that students of color benefit from educators who share their identities, suggesting that increasing Hispanic representation in educational leadership could better serve Texas youth. Yet, �հ��ܳ���’s recent executive order prohibits considering race in hiring decisions.

Opponents have irresponsibly weaponized the term “DEI hire” to argue that marginalized individuals who attain leadership positions are unqualified, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and deepening inequities. This perspective assumes that white superintendents dominate leadership positions solely due to merit, an argument that dangerously echoes long-debunked racial hierarchies of intelligence.

True DEI is not about being anti-white or indoctrinating students with a liberal ideology. It is about ensuring that all individuals, especially the historically marginalized, have equitable access to success. The current backlash against DEI risks cementing barriers that have persisted for generations, leaving educators with fewer tools to address disparities.

At its core, education is meant to be a great equalizer. But without intentional efforts to level the playing field, it often reinforces existing inequalities. DEI is not a threat to meritocracy – it is an essential mechanism for achieving it. As educators, we have a moral obligation to uphold these principles, ensuring that fairness and justice remain foundational in our schools and society.

Experts consider a released by the department late Friday to be more in line with how the courts have traditionally viewed illegal discrimination.

“This is such a far cry from what they put out two weeks ago,” said Jackie Wernz, a civil rights attorney and consultant who worked in both the Obama and first Trump administrations. “It’s downright reasonable.”

Part of the Trump administration’s larger effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion, the called diversity a “nebulous” goal and warned that districts could be subject to investigations for treating “students differently on the basis of race.” It prompted opposition from , and education . And it left some educators wondering topics like Black History Month.

The Q&A, however, asserts that officials would not automatically consider anything labelled DEI to be illegal and would examine as part of its investigations whether a policy actually resulted in discrimination against students. Cultural and historical observances are fine, the document says, as long as all students are welcome to participate, regardless of race.

“They were trying to see how far they could go, and then they got the pushback,” Wernz said, noting the timing of the department’s guidance. “I love that they say you can celebrate Black history at the end of the month.”

In a on the changes, Wernz noted that the department clarified that it would need evidence that a particular racial group was harmed before it decided to launch an investigation. But she still warned districts to avoid lessons that separate students by race or assignments that ask them to identify their race. 

Neeraja Deshpande, a policy analyst at the conservative Independent Women’s Forum, said there was no need to walk back any instructions to districts.

“I don’t think the earlier letter needed to be softened,” she said. “But, of course, school districts were going to have questions and this seemed to answer them.”

‘Vagueness, Confusion and Chaos’

The department is still likely to get wide-ranging reports of what members of the public consider “divisive ideologies and indoctrination.” The portal it unveiled last week doesn’t define what the department considers to be illegal discrimination. 

The additional guidance hasn’t prompted the American Federation of Teachers to drop its federal lawsuit over the original letter. In a statement, AFT President Randi Weingarten said that the Q&A “just made things murkier.”

Last week, the union, along with AFT-Maryland and the American Sociological Association, sued, appeared to ban the teaching of “systemic and structural racism” in American history. The lawsuit says the teachers would be afraid to discuss Jim Crow laws, the internment of Japanese Americans and other examples of historical discrimination.

The Q&A doesn’t discuss how teachers should approach lessons on history and only says, “OCR’s assessment of school policies and programs depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

“If you are a classroom teacher, you still have no idea what you can or can’t teach when it comes to the history of the United States and the world,” Weingarten  said. “It seems like vagueness, confusion and chaos is the point.”

Leaders say they have no plans to hit pause on the project despite a from the U.S. Department of Education that warns against efforts to “preference certain racial groups.” The strongly worded message from Craig Trainor, the top civil rights official at the department, said schools could be investigated for treating “students differently on the basis of race.” 

The Long Beach community asked for “a space that lifts the experience of Black youth,” said Deputy Superintendent Tiffany Brown, adding that the district has a “commitment to listen to those voices.”

Long Beach is not alone. While many school leaders at the letter’s tone, several left-leaning states and districts have since countered Trainor’s threats with tough statements of their own. 

“We’re going to be as inclusive as we’ve always been,” said Gustavo Balderas, superintendent of the Beaverton School District in Oregon. He called the department’s letter “an attempt to bully” districts. “Let’s not be hyper-reactive to things that come out right now.”

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey in a statement that DEI efforts make the state stronger. California state Superintendent assured districts that memos can’t override existing law or “impose new terms on existing agreements.” And Illinois state chief Tony Sanders reminded educators that state law on the history of different racial groups and LGBTQ issues. 

The letter is part of the Trump administration’s larger DEI offensive, which has included and the cancellation of millions of dollars in contracts related to equity goals.

On Thursday, the department unveiled , a website where the public can report schools they think are illegally discriminating against students.

Many districts and advocacy organizations like , the School Superintendents Association, have homed in on a footnote in Trainor’s letter stating that it “does not have the force and effect of law and does not bind the public or create new legal standards.” 

“It is just a letter. It’s not rules or regs. It’s not changing law,” said Sonia Park, executive director of the Diverse Charter Schools Association, a network with member schools nationwide. “We have diverse in our name. It’s not something we’re going to fade away from.” 

The letter referenced , a 2023 ruling in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down racial preferences in college admissions. But some experts say the letter is inconsistent with the court’s opinion. 

“The letter goes far beyond what the Supreme Court said in SFFA, and, indeed, even contradicts it,” said Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute. Trainor, for example, said that when making admission decisions, colleges can’t factor essays in which students write about the role of race in their lives. 

But that’s the opposite of what the court ruled, McCluskey said. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said nothing in the ruling “should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise.”��

According to Madison Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the department, officials plan to issue additional guidance. Andrew Manna, an Indianapolis-area education lawyer, said it might also take an actual complaint against a district or an OCR investigation to get clarity on what officials consider to be illegal discrimination. 

But some welcome the department’s more muscular approach. 

“I think, and hope, the department will be at least as strict as the Obama administration was,” said Neeraja Deshpande, a policy analyst at the conservative Independent Women’s Forum. She’s referring to a 2014 alerting districts that they risked civil rights investigations if they disproportionately disciplined Black and Hispanic students. A few months later, OCR launched an investigation into the , later finding over 100 instances where Black students were disciplined more harshly than their white peers for similar infractions.

“This is a fundamental question of fairness, as was SFFA,” Deshpande said. “OCR should absolutely go after schools that undermine fairness via unfair DEI preferences.”

Groups or classes or extra academic support aimed at specific are among the practices that Parents Defending Education, a conservative advocacy group, argues are illegal.

The American Federation of Teachers, along with AFT-Maryland and the American Sociological Association, is challenging the letter. They in federal court Tuesday, saying the “vague and clearly unconstitutional memo is a grave attack on students, our profession and knowledge itself.”

‘Target-rich environment’

Leaders in more right-leaning parts of the country said they’re also not worried about Trainor’s letter, largely because lawmakers in their states have already banned DEI.

Last year, Utah, for example, passed that labels diversity, equity and inclusion “prohibited discriminatory practices.” When Utah’s education department gave the legislature a compliance update, there were no violations to report, state Superintendent Sydnee Dickson told ����Ӱ��. 

“We didn’t need to make dramatic changes in our K-12 system,” she said. 

Trainor’s letter followed an from the president that called on the education department to devise a plan for stripping districts of their federal funds if they advance “discriminatory equity ideology.” Officials have until the end of April to devise such policies. 

But the OCR letter accelerates the process, warning districts to “cease all efforts” to accomplish what it calls “nebulous” diversity goals and that it will begin taking “appropriate measures to assess compliance” March 1. The department has yet to specify what those measures might be.

Parents Defending Education has already done a lot of the work for the new administration. The organization keeps a of districts nationwide that have equity-related policies and initiatives. Last year, it forced the Los Angeles district to revise its Black Student Achievement Plan, which provided additional counseling and academic support in schools predominantly serving Black students. All students, not just those who are Black, are now eligible for the extra help. 

 The group’s list has more districts from California than from any other state. 

“California is a target-rich environment for the administration’s causes,” said Laura Preston, director of government affairs for F3Law, which handles education cases throughout the state. 

She suggested that the state might not want to risk the loss of federal education funds at a time when state resources are needed to rebuild parts of Los Angeles ravaged by fire. But she also questioned OCR’s ability to conduct thorough investigations when the department is . The letter, she said, sets up a potential clash between states and the federal government. prohibits the government from mandating or controlling instruction or withholding funds from districts if they don’t comply. 

“Trump keeps saying he wants states’ rights [and] then tries to be the federal school board,” she said. “It doesn’t work in the long haul.”

‘Committed to full compliance’

To show that some education leaders welcome Trainor’s message, the department last week highlighted statements from several state chiefs who agree with the letter. 

“I applaud this directive from the U.S. Department of Education and Florida stands ready to assist other states to end racial preferences in education,” said Manny Diaz, Florida education commissioner. And Ellen Weaver, state superintendent in South Carolina, said her department is “committed to full compliance with the U.S. Department of Education’s directive.”

But Diaz, Weaver and Dickson from Utah were also among the 12 state education leaders who last month told Linda McMahon, �հ��ܳ���’s education secretary nominee, that they wanted the department to stop issuing “dear colleague” letters intended to push states to “take actions aligned to the current administration’s priorities and opinions.”

McCluskey at Cato said the letter is still consistent with their request, which was to clearly state that dear colleague letters are not legally binding. But he still finds such missives problematic.

“For all intents and purposes they impose new law, while those who issue them simultaneously claim they legally change nothing,” he said. “Of course, they shouldn’t change anything. Changing law is a legislative responsibility.”

Aaron Spence, superintendent of the Loudoun County Public Schools in Virginia — which has long been targeted on Parents Defending Education’s — said he’s tried to reassure the community that his district isn’t doing anything illegal, like using racial quotas or hiring staff based on race instead of qualifications.

In January 2022, just after his election, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin issued an demanding that schools avoid “inherently divisive concepts.” But Spence doesn’t view his district’s to be controversial and said under , districts are required to report student progress for different subgroups. 

“People get this pie mentality, which is ‘Oh gosh, if they do more for this group of students, they’re doing less for this group of students,’ ” he said. “The goal for everybody is 100% success. We’re working to ensure all of them get over the bar of achievement that we’ve set for them.”

The nation’s second-largest teachers union was joined by its Maryland affiliate in the suit, filed in a Baltimore district court. It targets guidance from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights in a Feb. 14 “Dear Colleague” letter sent to school officials across the country.

threatens to deny federal funding to any school that considers race in admissions, hirings, financial aid, scholarships, discipline policy and “all other aspects of student, academic and campus life.” 

“The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that

has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions,” the letter says. “The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice or equity is illegal.”

The lawsuit argues that the order’s vague language implies that all schools should get rid of all programming related to race and is actually an attempt at rewriting civil rights law.

The letter says all educational institutions must “cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race” and stop reliance on third-party agencies that are being used to “circumvent prohibited uses of race.” Schools have until Feb. 28 to comply.

“The activities and programs that are described as unlawful include: classroom instruction

that confronts difficult and uncomfortable subjects and imparts critical thinking skills,” the lawsuit says. “Orientations and training that equip students with the communication skills and tools to navigate complex social dynamics … and support services and extracurricular activities.”

In the suit, the AFT argues that the Trump administration and the department misrepresented the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination on the basis of race in federally funded programs. The letter also leans on the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard — which outlawed race in college admissions — and argues that the ruling applies more broadly.

“This Letter is an unlawful attempt by the Department to impose this administration’s particular views of how schools should operate as if it were the law,” the suit says.

Earlier this week, a different division of the Maryland district court granted a temporary restraining order in a separate lawsuit filed by the union. That one alleges that the department illegally gave Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency access to millions of private and sensitive records.